HARBOR SETTLEMENT PATTERNS OF THE SECOND

MILLENNIUM BC IN CILICIA AND THE AMUQ

A Master’s Thesis

by

SEVİLAY ZEYNEP ORUÇ

Department of Archaeology

İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University

Ankara

January 2013

To my family

HARBOR SETTLEMENT PATTERNS OF THE SECOND

MILLENNIUM BC IN CILICIA AND THE AMUQ

The Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences

of

İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University

by

SEVİLAY ZEYNEP ORUÇ

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree

of

MASTER OF ARTS

in

THE DEPARTMENT OF

ARCHAEOLOGY

İHSAN DOĞRAMACI BILKENT UNIVERSITY

ANKARA

January 2013

I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope

and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in Archaeology.

---------------------------------

Dr. Marie-Henriette Gates

Supervisor

I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope

and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in Archaeology.

---------------------------------

Dr. İlknur Özgen

Examining Committee Member

I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope

and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in Archaeology.

---------------------------------

Dr. Ekin Kozal

Examining Committee Member

Approval of the Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences

---------------------------------

Dr. Erdal Erel

Director

iii

ABSTRACT

HARBOR SETTLEMENT PATTERNS OF THE SECOND

MILLENNIUM BC IN CILICIA AND THE AMUQ

Oruç, Sevilay Zeynep

M.A., Department of Archaeology

Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Marie-Henriette Gates

January 2013

This thesis is a study on harbor settlement patterns in the northeastern

Mediterranean of the second millennium BC based on geo-archaeological evidence.

The purpose of the thesis is to assess a hypothesis that estuaries (river mouths/

outlets) acted as harbors for settlements in Cilicia and the Amuq. In order to pursue

the hypothesis further, river transport and inland river harbors are proposed. The

thesis will attempt to answer questions such as how harbor settlements can be

inferred from archaeological and geomorphological evidence and how archaeology

identifies river harbor settlements.

Keywords: Harbor settlement patterns, estuary, river transport, MBA and LBA

Anatolia, Cilicia, the Amuq Plain.

iv

ÖZET

KİLİKYA VE AMİK OVASI’NDA M. Ö. İKİNCİ BİN LİMAN

YERLEŞİM DOKULARI

Oruç, Sevilay Zeynep

Yüksek Lisans, Arkeoloji Bölümü

Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Marie-Henriette Gates

Ocak 2013

Bu tez jeo-arkeolojik kanıtlara dayanarak kuzeydoğu Akdeniz’de M.Ö. İkinci

bin liman yerleşim dokuları üzerine bir çalışmadır. Bu tezin amacı haliçlerin (nehir

ağızları/çıkışları) limanlar olarak görev yapmış olduğu hipotezini Kilikya ve Amik

Ovası’ndaki yerleşimler için değerlendirmektir. Bu hipotezi takip etmek için, nehir

taşımacılığı ve iç/karasal nehir limanları önerilir. Bu tez liman yerleşimleri arkeolojik

ve jeomorfolojik kanıtlardan nasıl anlaşılabilinir ve arkeoloji nehir limanı yerleşimle-

rini nasıl tanımlar gibi soruları cevaplandırmaya çalışacaktır.

Anahtar kelimeler: Liman yerleşim dokuları, nehir ağzı, nehir taşımacılığı, OTÇ ve

GTÇ Anadolu, Kilikya, Amik Ovası.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am deeply indebted forever to my supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Marie-

Henriette Gates, for her great encouragement and valuable guidance throughout this

thesis. She gave her time to read and correct my thesis. Without her patience and

strongly support, I would never have been able to complete this thesis.

I would like to express my gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Dr. İlknur Özgen for her

valuable and constructive comments on this thesis, and to Dr. Ekin Kozal who was

always ready to offer advice and support this study.

I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Mirko Novák, who was encouraging me to

study on the Cilician harbor settlement patterns during the excavation project of

Sirkeli Höyük.

I warmly thank Dr. Lucy Blue, for her generosity to send me some parts of

her PhD dissertation without question for giving support this study.

I also owe much to my all friends from this faculty for their friendship and

support. My special and endlessly thanks go to my family who has consistently

supported me during the writing of this thesis and in whatever I wanted to do.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT........................................................................................................... iii

ÖZET...................................................................................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................... vi

LIST OF MAPS..................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................... x

ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.......................................................................... 1

1.1 Geographical Scope of the Thesis.................................................................... 3

1.2 Methodology.................................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 2: LANDSCAPES OF CILICIA AND THE AMUQ......................... 7

2.1 Geomorphology of the Region of Cilicia......................................................... 7

2.1.1 The Göksu Valley................................................................................... 7

2.1.2 Çukurova/Plain Cilicia............................................................................ 8

2.1.3 Dörtyol and Erzin Plains......................................................................... 11

2.2 Geomorphology of the Region of Amuq.......................................................... 12

2.3 The Geomorphology of Regional Sites............................................................ 14

vii

2.3.1 Tarsus-Gözlükule Höyük........................................................................ 14

2.3.2 Kinet Höyük............................................................................................ 15

2.3.3 Sabuniye Höyük...................................................................................... 17

CHAPTER 3: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR HARBOR

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS........................................................... 18

3.1 The Landscape as Evidence for Harbor Settlements......................................... 18

3.2 Artifacts as Evidence for Harbor Settlements................................................... 22

3.2.1 Ceramics................................................................................................... 23

3.2.2 Local Trends in Ceramics Styles.............................................................. 25

3.2.3 Shipwrecks and Their Cargoes................................................................. 26

3.2.4 Boats......................................................................................................... 28

3.2.5 Marine Industries...................................................................................... 28

3.3 Architectural Features Specific to Harbors........................................................ 29

CHAPTER 4: THE IMPORTANCE OF RIVERS AND RIVER

TRANSPORT................................................................................... 31

4.1 River Transport.................................................................................................. 32

4.2 River Boats........................................................................................................ 34

CHAPTER 5: THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF REGIONAL HARBORS................... 43

5.1. Western Cilicia/Rough Cilicia.......................................................................... 43

5.1.1 Kilise Tepe.............................................................................................. 43

5.2. Cilician Plain/Smooth Cilicia........................................................................... 46

5.2.1 Soli Höyük............................................................................................... 46

5.2.2 Mersin-Yumuktepe Höyük...................................................................... 47

5.2.3 Tarsus-Gözlükule Höyük......................................................................... 48

viii

5.2.4 Kazanlı.................................................................................................... 50

5.2.5 Domuz Tepe............................................................................................ 52

5.2.6 Sirkeli Höyük.......................................................................................... 53

5.2.7 Karahöyük/Erzin..................................................................................... 55

5.2.8 Kinet Höyük ........................................................................................... 56

5.3 A Transition Zone between Cilicia and the Amuq........................................... 58

5.3.1 Dağılbaz Höyük....................................................................................... 58

5.4 The Amuq Valley and the Asi Delta Plain....................................................... 58

5.4.1 Tell Atchana/Alalakh.............................................................................. 58

5.4.2 Sabuniye Höyük/Sabouniyeh................................................................... 61

5.5 The North Syrian Coast/The Jebleh Plain......................................................... 63

5.5.1 Ugarit/Ras Shamra................................................................................... 63

5.5.2 Minet el-Beidha........................................................................................ 66

5.5.3 Ras Ibn Hani............................................................................................ 68

5.5.4 Tell Tweini/Gibala.................................................................................... 69

CHAPTER 6: REGIONAL HARBORS UNDER HITTITE CONTROL.............. 73

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION............................................................................... 84

BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................... 92

MAPS....................................................................................................................... 112

FIGURES................................................................................................................. 118

ix

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1: Geographical scope of the study................................................................ 113

Map 2: The Göksu Valley....................................................................................... 114

Index of Cilician Sites on Map 3............................................................................ 115

Map 3: Plain Cilicia................................................................................................ 116

Map 4: The Asi Delta Plain and the Amuq............................................................ 117

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Developmental stages of the Göksu plain,

phase I showing the first stage............................................................... 119

Figure 2: Developmental phases of the Tarsus plain,

stage 5a-b showing the shoreline of the mid-Holocene......................... 120

Figure 3: The evolution of the Ceyhan river.......................................................... 121

Figure 4: Map showing the plains of Dörtyol and Erzin........................................ 122

Figure 5: Developmental phases of the Asi (Orontes) delta plain.......................... 123

Figure 6: Geomorphologic map of the Kinet Höyük area,

map showing the oldest Deli river.......................................................... 124

Figure 7: Kinet Höyük, Operation R showing stratigraphic units.......................... 125

Figure 8: Geomorphologic map of the Asi delta plain showing

soundings................................................................................................. 126

Figure 9: Map showing MB river harbors along the middle part of

the coastal Israel....................................................................................... 127

Figure 10: A commercial container from Uluburun, the Canaanite jar.................. 128

Figure 11: Canaanite jars stored in the warehouse of Minet el-Beidha.................. 128

xi

Figure 12: Commercial containers, the Cypriot pithos........................................... 129

Figure 13: Commercial goods, the Cypriot fine ware............................................. 129

Figure 14: An example for local trends in ceramic styles from Tell el Dab’a........ 130

Figure 15: A gold pendant from Uluburun

showing a representation of Astarte...................................................... 130

Figure 16: A boat depiction on an Ugaritic cylinder seal....................................... 131

Figure 17: A boat depiction on a faience seal from Ugarit..................................... 131

Figure 18: A depiction of boat on a Canaanite jar handle from Tell Tweini.......... 132

Figure 19: The shipshed at Kommos...................................................................... 132

Figure 20: Illustrations of hauling river boat on the Euphrates river..................... 133

Figure 21: Mortise-tenon joints.............................................................................. 134

Figure 22: A MBA terracotta model of boat from Anatolia.................................. 134

Figure 23: Langlois’ gravure showing boats on the Seyhan

in the 19th

century AD.......................................................................... 134

Figure 24: The main shapes of Red Lustrous Wheel Made Ware.......................... 135

Figure 25: Late Mycenaean sherds 2, 5, 7 from Kazanlı and 8 from Tarsus.......... 135

Figure 26: Sirkeli Höyük, geo-electric profile 5 showing the wall of a dock......... 136

Figure 27: Sirkeli Höyük, geo-electric profile 1

showing a wall east of the channel......................................................... 136

xii

Figure 28: The topographic map of Sirkeli Höyük,

showing an artificial channel of the Ceyhan river................................. 137

Figure 29: Tell Atchana, wall paintings in Minoan fresco technique..................... 138

Figure 30: Tell Atchana, some imported Late Cypriot ceramics............................ 138

Figure 31: Map showing the relationship between Ugarit and its harbors,

Minet el-Beidha and Ras Ibn Hani........................................................ 139

Figure 32: Map showing the Ugaritic Kingdom and its harbor towns................... 140

Figure 33: Tarsus, a Hieroglyphic bulla with the personal name Isputahsu........... 141

Figure 34: Kilise Tepe, an ivory stamp seal............................................................ 141

Figure 35: Soli Höyük, a Hieroglyphic bulla with the personal name

Targasna................................................................................................ 141

Figure 36: Yumuktepe, Building levels VII-V showing a casemate system.......... 142

Figure 37: Kinet Höyük, a stamped Canaanite jar handle

with a Hittite official seal..................................................................... 143

Figure 38: Tell Tweini, a seal with a Hittite-Luwian hieroglyphic inscription...... 143

xiii

ABBREVIATIONS

BP: Before Present

EBA: Early Bronze Age

MBA: Middle Bronze Age

LBA: Late Bronze Age

EIA: Early Iron Age

MIA: Middle Iron Age

LIA: Late Iron Age

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Landscapes have been modified by people to meet their essential needs such

as shelter, subsistence and transport. The harbor settlement, which is one of the

forms of land use, was established on the basis of indispensable needs such as

available water, and subsistence, such as an agrarian area or source of raw materials.

The land should also be sheltered. At the same time it should be accessible like every

settlement but include a harbor on an approachable coastline (Vann, 1997: 308).

Waterfronts are chosen according to some favorable conditions specific for a

harbor location: to be sheltered against strong winds, waves and bad weather

conditions, to provide access both to inland and overseas routes, and to offer suitable

physical conditions for lifting boats and docking facilities.

Harbor sites supply economic and social needs through their maritime

activities. Harbors offer safe anchorages for vessels to transport people and goods,

storage facilities for goods and other maritime activities like ship-building, fishing

and commercial transport on boats (Frost, 1995: 2; Raban, 1995: 139). Harbors make

it possible to reach islands, which are inaccessible without seafaring. Heavy goods

are shipped more easily by boat, which can hold a larger volume and weight in one

2

vessel than could be transported by animal (Monroe, 2007: 14). The movement of

goods by boat is also faster than overland transport in suitable weather conditions

(Panagiotopoulos, 2011: 37-38). Harbors boost the economy of the settlement and its

region. They can enhance and enrich culture and knowledge via the movement of

ideas by boat.

Bronze Age maritime exchange in the eastern Mediterranean required an

exploration of coastal land to set up harbors and their installations, since the

exchange was organized from harbors. Shipwrecks (Uluburun and Cap Gelidonya)

and textual documents (from Hittite and Ugarit) shows that the coast line of Cilicia

and the Amuq was used as a route and that harbor settlements were present, whether

these coastal sites participated in trade actively, or served as transporting points.

On the other hand, there are some unanswered questions on harbor

settlements of Cilicia and the Amuq. What was the nature of harbors in terms of the

physical setting? What were their functions? And, where were the sites located?

Archaeological surveys and excavations, although limited in number, give

encouraging results that there are a good number of potential harbor settlements

along the rivers in Cilicia and the Amuq. But, long term geomorphologic changes

(silting and shifting in river course) restrict scientific studies. In this context, the

locations of pre-classical harbors have not been determined exactly. However, when

we take these items into consideration it is obvious that harbor settlements were

established and used in these regions. I believe, therefore, this is an important issue

to determine the settlement patterns of the 2nd

millennium BC harbors in Cilicia and

the Amuq with archaeological evidence in order to construct a picture from harbors

of MBA (ca. 2000-1500 BC) and LBA (ca. 1500-1200 BC) in these regions.

3

1.1 Geographical Scope of the Thesis

This thesis concerns of two regions, Cilicia and the Amuq plains (Map 1).

Cilicia is divided into two sections that are Cilicia Tracheia and Cilicia Pedias based

on physical features. Cilicia Tracheia or Rough Cilicia refers to a hilly landscape

composing the western part of Cilicia, which extends from Alanya, the eastern sector

of the district of Antalya, to part of the province of Mersin (Vann, 1997: 307; Yakar,

2000: 344). The highland is dominated by Hellenistic and Roman settlements (Seton-

Williams, 1954: 121; Vann, 1997: 307-308). Pre-classical archaeological sites in the

region were determined in the Göksu (Calycadnus) river valley, which includes

lowlands as opposed to the general topography of Rough Cilicia, and the only part of

Rough Cilicia that will be considered here together with Smooth Cilicia. Relevant

sites are Kilise Tepe on the east bank of the Göksu river and Çingen Tepe, to the

west of the river. The eastern part of the region is named Cilicia Pedias or Smooth

Cilicia (Vann, 1997: 307). It is accepted that this flatter region extends from Soli,

located near Mersin, to Issus, in Hatay, according to Strabo (Russell, 1954: 378;

Yakar, 2000: 344). The smooth region comprises plains and wet lands (Seton-

Williams, 1954: 121). The west and central or middle Taurus mountain range

encloses the region’s western side, the Anti-Taurus encircles its northeast part and

the Amanus (Nur) mountains, on the east of the Gulf of Iskenderun, enclose its east

side (Seton-Williams, 1954: 123; Atalay, 1997: 205; Yakar, 2000: 14, 344). Apart

from three natural passages, the Göksu valley, Cilician Gates (the passage of the

Gülek) and the Belen (Belian) pass, the landscape of the region is impassable.

4

The region of the Amuq, which is also a plain, is surrounded by the Kurt

mountains to the northeast, the Amanus mountains on the northwest, Jebel al-Aqra1

(Keldağ mountains) and Jebel Zahwiye on the southwest and the Aleppo (Halep)

plateau on the southeast (Yakar, 2000: 345; Casana and Wilkinson, 2005: 28). The

Amuq Valley connects with overland routes north (Islahiye), east (Afrin) and south

(Asi). To the west, the Asi (Orontes) delta plain connects the Amuq with the sea and

its maritime routes. In this thesis, the delta plain will be particularly considered.

1.2 Methodology

As mentioned above, there are some unanswered questions on harbor

settlements of these regions. Whereas there are a good number of potential harbor

settlements along the rivers, long term geomorphological changes restrict scientific

studies. For these reasons, the topic of my thesis requires combining previous

interdisciplinary studies with long term perspectives. Some widespread features of

harbor settlements in the Levant can be compared to settlement patterns of the 2nd

millennium BC harbors in these regions.

Studies on the location of the harbors in the Levant, Cyprus and Crete

propose a widespread pattern for harbors and their settlements during the second

millennium BC on the Levantine coastline. Hence, I applied to the Cilician and the

Amuqian plains the characteristic feature as a hypothesis which is called “the

Levantine model”; estuaries (river mouths/outlets) acted as harbors and the navigable

rivers linked the harbors with their inland settlements (Raban 1985: 14; 1991: 134).

1 The mountain is referred to the sacred mountain of the Hittites, Hazzi or Huzzi (Pamir, 2005: 68)

and sailors could see its peak from as far as Cyprus (Woolley, (1938a: 2) as cited in Pamir (2005: 68).

5

The majority of harbor settlements, some of which were inland, were located at or

near rivers and on a river bank. The river mouths or estuaries, which were exploited,

(Raban, 1985: 14; Taffet, 2001: 128) are the key to this harbor settlement pattern. Its

harbors connected the open sea and the interior, where mountain ranges acted as

barriers restricting overland routes.

In addition, river transport and inland river harbors are suggested for Cilicia

and the Amuq in this thesis to pursue the hypothesis. In order to assess the aim of the

study some research questions are chosen as a guide: (1) Where were the sites

located in the ancient landscape? (2) How can harbor settlements be inferred from

archaeological contexts? (3) How can archaeology identify river harbor settlements

in these regions?

The following chapter aims to describe the approximate landscape of the 2nd

millennium BC, since a range of geomorphological changes has transformed these

regions up to the present. Rivers had not in their present courses; lowlands were not

filled by rivers. The second part of the chapter presents three interdisciplinary studies

or geomorphological applications that were conducted around the mounds of Tarsus-

Gözlükule Höyük and Kinet Höyük in Cilicia and Sabuniye in the Asi delta plain, the

Amuq. The third chapter attempts to introduce harbor settlement patterns by

discussing the Levantine harbor settlements with particular specific archaeological

evidence or components. The fourth chapter discusses the importance of rivers and

river transport, since people utilized rivers and coast thanks to suitable vessels; river

and their outlets offered inland and river-sea transport as easier, safe and more

economical than inland routes by caravans. Chapter five introduces harbor

settlements in Cilicia and the Amuq with two Levantine contemporaries. I strive to

6

show connections between rivers and harbor settlements with archaeological

evidence, since ceramics can pinpoint harbor locations by cross cultural contact and

river transport by their inland mobility. The sixth and final chapter considers the

Hittite impacts on the settlement patterns of harbors in Cilicia and Amuq after the

Hittite annexation in the mid-14th

century BC.

7

CHAPTER 2

LANDSCAPES OF CILICIA AND THE AMUQ

Determinations of landscape changes, especially in littoral areas, are

significant to define the 2nd

millennium BC Amuqian and Cilician harbors and their

settlements, since deltaic deposits, silting because of alluviation and shifting in river

courses buried harbors under the plains (Blue, 1997: 39; Taffet, 2001: 131). In order

to assess the approximate landscape for the setting of the Bronze Age harbor sites,

geomorphological changes are summarized in this chapter. Then, geomorphological

applications will be presented, since archaeology can determine scientifically the

locations and dates of harbors with the assistance of geomorphological data.

2.1 Geomorphology of the Region of Cilicia

2.1.1 The Göksu Valley

The Göksu river valley that consists of the littoral site of Silifke, the Mut

region and the Çoğla canyon is a natural route which connects the Anatolian plateau

to the Mediterranean coast (Newhard et al., 2008: 88). The Göksu river with waves

and wind built the most prominent delta plain of Anatolia toward the sea at the west

8

side of the Cilician plain, southeast of Silifke (Erol, 2003: 63; Koç, 2007: 22). The

river which is fed by Geyik Mountain flows through the Mut region into the sea from

the plain of Silifke through Cape Incekum (Russell, 1954: 378; Koç, 2007: 22).

In the upper Pliocene, the Göksu began to erode laterally the region of Mut

and formed the Mut basin by opening the Göksu valley (Çiçek, 2001: 11-13). Five

thousand years ago, the river began to form a delta plain at the approach to the sea:

this is the plain of Silifke (Russell, 1954: 378; Keçer and Duman, 2007: 18; Koç,

2007: 22). Firstly, the delta advanced toward the east and then was directed to the

south (Atalay, 1997: 209). About two thousand years ago, the first stage of the plain

was completed and the river flowed into the sea from around the present town of

Bahçeköy (Figure 1) (Bener, 1967: 99; Koç, 2007: 82). The river then flowed

northeast of the present course, and the east part of the plain was formed (Koç, 2007:

68, 84).

2.1.2 Çukurova2/Plain Cilicia

The geomorphologic evolution of the Cilician plain is closely associated with

tectonic activities like the rising of mountains and a eustatic process like regression

(Erinç, 1952-1953: 149-150; Erol, 2003: 63; Öner et al., 2005: 71, 73). The lowland

is placed in the northeastern part of a structural depression or basin between the

Taurus Mountain range on the north and Cyprus (Erol, 2003: 61; Öner et al., 2005:

71). During the Neotectonic period3 the Taurus range rose as a result of tectonic

transactions while the northeastern part of the depression subsided according to long

2 Çukurova, the present name of the region of Cilicia, is a name derived from its morphology, “Trough

Plain”. 3 The period that began about 15 million years ago corresponds with middle Miocene and Pliocene

epochs (Erol, 2003: 61).

9

term sea level changes (Erinç, 1952-1953: 150; Erol, 2003: 63; Öner et al., 2005: 71).

During this process, the base of the delta plain was formed (Erol, 2003: 63). In the

late Pleistocene and early Holocene (ca.15.000-9000 BP), the depression or basin

here began to fill with alluvial deposits from the Tarsus (Berdan), Seyhan and

Ceyhan rivers (Erol, 2003: 60, 63; Öner et al., 2005: 69, 71).

The Tarsus delta plain (Figure 2), which constitutes the western part of the

plain system, is formed by the deposition of sediments from the Tarsus river that

feeds on the Bolkar Mountains (Öner et al., 2005: 71). The formation of the plain

began during the pre-Holocene: alluvial fan deposits were formed on the slopes of

the mountains and transported to the shore by high energy rivers (Öner et al., 2005:

77). During the early Holocene, the rising sea level enclosed the skirts of the alluvial

fan and a slight coastal bank was produced far beyond the shoreline; this area

consists of the watery lands (Öner et al., 2005: 77). By the mid-Holocene4 (ca.

6000/5000 BP)5, the end of the rising in sea level allowed the expansion of the

alluvial plain toward the sea (Öner et al., 2005: 74, 77-78) when it had reached a

level close to the present day. Lagoons, formed in depression areas behind the sand

dunes, began to fill with sands and alluviums, and sand dunes shaped the coastal

plain around the Karabucak (marshland areas) near Tarsus (Öner et al., 2005: 77).

The formation of the Tarsus delta plain caused the progression of the land between

the mountains and the coastal strip. Thus, although today Tarsus lies closer to the

coast (Erol, 2003: 63), it was never a coastal site. In the late Holocene, the wetland

4 The mid-Holocene period corresponds between ca. 6.5 and 3.0 ka BP (=thousands years before

present) (Roberts et al., 2011: 5). 5 Kayan stated (1993: 63) the sea-level closed to the present day in 5200 BP, however, there are

different dates proposed by others for the change. The date is therefore given as 6000/5000 BP in this

thesis.

10

maintained its feature until the reforestation in present days. The volume of flow of

the Tarsus river was weakened by building the Berdan dam together with marine

erosion has reduced or even stopped the natural evolution of the plain (Öner et al.,

2005: 78).

The Tarsus plain joins the Seyhan delta plain which projects toward the sea

by an outlet of the Seyhan river (Erol, 2003: 64). From time to time during the late

Pleistocene and early Holocene, or even as late as the mid-Holocene, the Ceyhan

river flowed together with the Seyhan river, and sometimes the two flowed

separately (Map 3) (Erinç, 1952-1953: 154; Erol, 2003: 59). These two rivers built

up the east part of the Cilician delta plain, to form the Yüreğir Plain around present-

day Adana (Öner et al., 2005: 69; Erol, 2003: 64). An old river course of the Seyhan

was situated ca. 10 km east of its present course in the Tuzla area between the

Akyatan lagoon and the present Seyhan delta course (Gürbüz, 1999: 216, 220).

Formerly, the Ceyhan and Seyhan rivers were running on the southeastern side of the

Cilician plain and into the Akyatan lagoon (Erinç, 1952-1953: 154; Erol, 2003: 60).

The old Ceyhan river reached the sea west of Karataş (Map 3 and Figure 3) (Erol,

2003: 66). Today, the Seyhan flows in a western course across the plain, whereas the

Ceyhan river shifts east at Adana in the direction of Karataş. Late in the mid-

Holocene, about 2500 years ago6, after episodes of tectonic activity on the Çoruk-

Çamlık fault, the course of the Ceyhan moved to the village of Bebeli, east of

Karataş (Figure 3) (Erinç, 1952-1953: 154; Erol, 2003: 60, 64, 66). About two

thousand years ago, the Hurmaboğazı-Ağyatan lagoons behind the sands began to

6 The date of the separation must have occurred about 5

th century BC according to Tchihatcheff, (1853

and 1869) as cited in Erinç (1952-1953: 154), at the time of the Ptolemies (Hellenistic, 3rd

- 1st BC),

the Sarus (Seyhan) separated from the Pyramus (Ceyhan) (Russell, 1954: 378).

11

develop by the river (Erol, 2003: 66-67). From the first millennium BC to the

twentieth century AD, the Ceyhan river built the “Cilician late Holocene waterfront”,

extending about 30 km. east until the 1900s, when the flow power of the river, which

allowed it to carry sediments for the delta formation, decreased (Erinç, 1952-1953:

155; Erol, 2003: 64, 67-71). Today the river streams into the sea from the outlet of

Hurmaboğazı (Erinç, 1952-1953: 155; Erol, 2003: 66).

2.1.3 Dörtyol and Erzin Plains

The plains of Dörtyol and Erzin along the northeast side of the Gulf of

Iskenderun cover an area of 260 km2

(Figure 4) (Doyuran, 1982: 151). The Misis

Mountains lie to the west of the Dörtyol plain and the Amanus Mountains surround

the east of the Erzin plain (Ozaner, 1993: 338). The Erzin plain is separated from the

Ceyhan by the Kısık gorge in the province of Osmaniye (Doyuran, 1982: 151). To its

south, the Dörtyol plain extends as far as the area of the Payas river, where the plain

is only 4 km wide (Doyuran, 1982: 151-152). Between the Miocene and the Pliocene

periods7, the Gulf of Iskenderun was formed by subsiding that resulted from faulting

in the Amanos Mountains (Doyuran, 1982: 158; Ardos, 1985: 126). In the

Quaternary period8, alluvial cones carried from the Amanos Mountains by local

rivers9 accumulated along the faulting, filling the depression to form the Erzin and

Dörtyol plains, in the narrow west skirt of the Amanos mountains (Ardos, 1985:126).

7 Tem Dam, (1952) as cited in Doyuran, (1982) suggests the time span for the subsistence.

8 The period which comprises of the Pleistocene and the Holocene corresponds with 2.6 Mya.

Information is available on-line at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary 9 Mahirönü, Sukarışan, Erzin, Deli, Özerli, Rabat and Kuru rivers and the Payas river that is the

southern boundary of the Erzin plain (Doyuran, 1982: 152).

12

Sand dunes are located along the coastline of the plain and marshy lands are situated

behind the dunes.

The section of the Dörtyol delta plain around Payas has expanded by 1500 m.

in about 2500 years, whereas the expansion is ca. 525 m. around Kinet Höyük as a

result of the subsidence of the coast (Ozaner, 1995: 520-521). The variation in delta

evolution is derived from frequent shifts in local river courses, and faulting in the

northern part of the plain which creates the subsidence (Ozaner, 1995: 521). Thus the

horizontal development of the delta is slow (Ozaner, 1995: 521).

2.2 Geomorphology of the Region of Amuq

The Asi (Asi) river, which is the main river of the plain, rises in the Lebanon

and reaches the plain by flowing north (ca. 644 km) along the Dead Sea Rift Valley

in Syria (Yakar, 2000: 346). When it reaches the Amuq valley, the river changes its

direction toward the west (south of the Amuq Lake) to the sea, and flows into the sea

from the town of Samandağ (southwest of Antioch) through the Ziriye gorge,

between the Ziyaret and Semen mountains (Erol, 1963: 8; Öner, 2008: 2).

The Asi river formed a delta plain (40 km2) between the west limit of the

Amuq valley and the Ziriye gorge (Erol, 1963: 8; Pamir, 2005: 67-68). Before it

reaches the Ziriye gorge, the Asi flows in a tectonic depression, defined by Erol as

the lower Asi graben10

(1963:8). At the beginning of the Quaternary period, the

gorge was narrow and sloped due to faulting, so that the river and its tributaries

began to flow in the gorge (Erol, 1963: 10, 56, 59). In the end of the early Holocene

10

“Untere Asi rinne” (Erol, 1963: 65), dating to the end of the Miocene and deepened between the

end of the Pliocene and the early Quaternary period by tectonic activities (Erol, 1963: 9-10).

13

and at the beginning of the mid-Holocene, the coastline was 7-8 m. below the present

level (Öner, 2008: 8). The sea was inserted to form a gulf area, now between the

mound of Al Mina and the hill of Hisalli (Figure 5) (Öner, 2008: 8-9).

In the mid-Holocene, the Asi river and other streams began to fill the coastal

end of the lower Asi graben and its bay-like area with alluvium (Öner, 2008: 9). In

the last five thousand years, the gulf was transformed by alluvial deposition into the

present Asi delta plain (Öner, 2008: 9). However, the fault systems11

which intersect

in the town of Samandağ created sharp slopes surrounding the delta plain (Erol,

1963: 9-10). Thus the development of the delta to the sea was restricted by natural

causes (Erol, 1963: 9-10). According to Erol (1963: 31), through the reduction in the

sea level, the coastal formation of the plain occurred. The present beach, 15 km long,

is flat apart from the projection of the river mouth because the prevailing wind blows

from the sea toward the shore (Erol, 1963: 12-13; Pamir, 2005: 68; Öner, 2008: 11).

Behind the coastal formations, former dried lagoonal areas are observed (Erol, 1963:

12, 20).

About 2800 years ago, the river flowed into the sea through the southwest of

the Samandağ village where a lagoon was situated in the present beach (Erol, 1963:

16). In addition, a depression which was observed between Al Mina and the lagoon

can be defined as an old river bed (Erol, 1963: 16). In the 20th

century AD, the river

bed shifted to the present bed (Erol, 1963: 17).

The lake of the Amuq (Antioch) was situated in the center of the Amuq valley

as a significant water source between the 1st millennium AD to the 20

th century

11

The fault systems are the southwest fault system in the Amanos Mountains, and a second fault

system extends from Antakya to the sea (Erol, 1963: 10).

14

AD12

. In the mid-Holocene, however, between three thousand BC to the first

millennium BC13

, the basin did not present any watery forms (Casana and Wilkinson,

2005: 33). The formation of the lake proper appeared in the Roman period (Yener et

al., 2000: 175; Casana and Wilkinson, 2005: 33).

2.3 The Geomorphology of Regional Sites

Geomorphological studies, although limited, were conducted in the vicinities

of the mounds of Tarsus, around the Gulf of Iskenderun and Kinet Höyük in Cilicia,

and around the mound of Sabuniye in the Asi delta plain. The mounds in the deltas

are candidates for harbor settlements.

2.3.1 Tarsus-Gözlükule Höyük

Geomorphological soundings were conducted in the vicinity of Gözlükule by

E. Öner, B. Hocaoğlu, and L. Uncu (2001-2002) to determine the base level of the

mound and the location of the mound’s port14

in wetlands areas like the Karabucak

swamp west of the mound and the Rhegma, which was the potential ancient port

south of Karabucak (Öner et al., 2005: 74). Results of the studies indicate that the

Tarsus river did not flow into these swampy areas, the sea never extended as far as

the mound and town of Tarsus, and the water level in the lagoon was not enough for

boats to approach because of silting (Figure 2) (Öner et al., 2005: 69, 77, 80-81). In

12

The lake dried in the 1950s and 1960s (Casana and Wilkinson, 2005: 28).

13 The buried settlements of the third and early second millennium BC were determined beneath lake

deposits (Yener et al., 2000: 176). 14

Ancient resources state that in the first millennium BC, Tarsus used a lagoon (Rhegma) as a harbor,

south of the mound (Öner et al., 2005: 69, 80). According to Strabo “is the mouth of the Cydnus

(Tarsus river), at the place called Rhegma, which is a lake, and where you may still see the remains of

stocks for building of ships. Into this lake the Cydnus falls.” Strabo as cited in Barker (1853: 137).

15

addition, even if a lagoon harbor was used in this time, it could have not been used in

the 2nd

millennium BC, since the lagoon formed in the 1st millennium BC only (Öner

et al., 2005: 76-77, fig. 3). Besides, the marshy land could not be appropriate for

long-time occupation, since mosquitoes of the swamp (Seton-Williams, 1954: 128)

might lead to the deadly disease, malaria. It seems that geomorphological studies

eliminate historical sources on the location of the 2nd

millennium harbor of Tarsus

which will be discussed below (the section 5.2.3 of Chapter 5).

2.3.2 Kinet Höyük

Geomorphological studies were conducted around of the mound of Kinet

within the excavation project of Kinet Höyük by S. Ozaner (1991-1993) (Ozaner

1995) and T. Beach and S. Luzzadder-Beach (1998-2008). In this thesis, results of

their studies concerning the second millennium BC location of the mound’s harbors

will be considered.

The mound of Kinet was located near the waterfront when it was first built

(Ozaner, 1993: 339). At the present, the mound is ca. 525 m. inside from the shore

because of alluviation and erosion (Ozaner, 1993: 339; Beach and Luzzadder-Beach,

2008: 416). Historical sources15

and geo-archaeological studies suggest that Bronze

Age Kinet had two harbors, which were a natural bay on the north side and an

estuary harbor on the south side (Gates, 1999a: 260; 2003b: 17).

The study by Ozaner (1995) determined the old courses of the Deli Çay

(stream) (Figure 6). The former course of the Deli flowed just south of Kinet Höyük

15

Issos as ancient Kinet had a docking place or mooring with Pinaros river (the ancient Deli Çay)

Strabo as cited in Ozaner (1995: 515).

16

then fell into the sea until the last quarter of the first millennium BC (Ozaner, 1995:

516-518). The estuary of the river or stream most likely acted as a river port during

the 2nd

millennium BC (Gates, 2008: 292). From this date onwards, the Deli reached

the sea 2 km south of Kinet along its former course (Ozaner, 1995: 517). Later,

presumably in Ottoman times, the river changed its second course farther southwest,

and flowed into the sea another 500 m. south of the second course (Ozaner, 1995:

518-519).

In addition, a geomorphological sounding (Operation “R”) in a field 100 m.

northwest of the mound produced significant evidence for a LB harbor town or port

installations beneath the alluvium (Gates, 2002: 55-56; 2003a: 289-290; Beach and

Luzzadder-Beach, 2008: 422). LBA in situ occupation and artifacts were determined

between depths of 0.5 m. to nearly 4.8 m. (Beach and Luzzadder-Beach, 2008: 422).

At 3.5 m. depth, materials are dated to LBA, supported by radiocarbon dates 1680-

1130 BC (intercept date 1420 BC 14

C) (Figure 7) (Gates, 2002: 56; Beach and

Luzzadder-Beach, 2008: 422-423, fig. 5).The artifacts from these deposits include

fragments of imported Cypriot and Canaanite potteries (Gates, 2002: 56). It is

possible that Kinet harbor settlement of the LBA or maybe a warehouse was located

northwest of the mound, on the sea coast (Gates, 2003a: 289-290).

Furthermore, geomorphological studies suggest that aggradation reached the

peak around Kinet Höyük in the Hellenistic to Late Roman period when the town

was abandoned (Beach and Luzzadder-Beach, 2008: 425-427).

17

2.3.3 Sabuniye Höyük

Sabuniye which is ca. 5.3 km inland from the sea now is situated on the west

of the Amuq where the river Asi which closes its south side reaches the delta plain

(Pamir and Nishiyama, 2002: 310; Pamir, 2005: 70-71). Geomorphological studies

around the mound of Sabuniye and the delta plain were carried out by E. Öner and L.

Uncu within “the Asi Delta Survey”

west of the Amuq in 2000 and 2002 (Pamir,

2005: 72; Öner, 2008: 2). According to ceramic findings associated with

geomorphological stratigraphy, the site could be occupied during the MBA and LBA

(Öner, 2008: 7).

Core drillings (to a depth of 15 m.) were made at several points west and

south of Sabuniye, along the river and the delta plain (Figure 8) (Pamir, 2005: 72;

Öner, 2008: 6-7). Between 7000 and 5000 BP, the sea inserted itself into inner parts

of the delta, between Al Mina and the ridge of Hisallı hill; however, the coastline

never reached as far as Sabuniye (Öner, 2008: 7, 10). Sabuniye was therefore not a

coastline city in the second millennium BC, but situated in a wetland area created by

the river and the sea (Pamir and Nishiyama, 2002: 312; Pamir, 2005: 72; Öner, 2008:

7-8). Sabuniye was, however, closer to the mouth of the Asi than today (Öner, 2008:

10).

In this chapter, the background of the harbors and their settlements was

addressed by interdisciplinary studies. Geomorphological studies confirmed that

Kinet Höyük had two harbors and Sabuniye might have been used as an inland

harbor, whereas, historical sources on Tarsus’s harbor and the Tarsus river do not

match with geomorphological studies. These studies also indicate that rivers and

their estuaries should be considered for the Bronze Age.

18

CHAPTER 3

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR HARBOR

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

In this chapter I will give some specific archaeological evidence or

components for harbor settlements by discussing Levantine harbor settlement

patterns. I will discuss the archaeological evidence in three categories which are

recognized as landscape, artifacts and architecture.

3.1 The Landscape as Evidence for Harbor Settlements

In the second millennium BC, sea port and river harbor or both of them were

in use. On the one hand, natural harbors, which are located on a headland, natural

cove, and lagoons, acted as seaside harbors and, on the other hand, river mouths or

estuaries were used as harbors, sometimes with some modifications (Blue, 1997: 31-

32). Artificial harbors, which were entirely constructed, do not occur until the first

half of the first millennium BC (Vann, 1997: 319; Marriner and Morhange, 2007:

146). It can be said that semi-artificial river harbors were used, particularly along the

eastern Mediterranean coasts, since some man-made adjustments will be seen below.

19

River harbors have more advantages than sea ports. Especially, it is

sometimes difficult to access the interior by inland road, whereas river harbors

simplify the delivery of goods. In addition, the mouth of rivers provided safer

anchorages for boats to approach and dock than sea ports, which were exposed to

winds and sea waves. The Levantine coast was well furnished with river harbors

where settlements were set at river mouths and a bit inland on the same riverbanks

(Figure 9) (Raban, 1985: 14): as a typical example, on the Nahal (river) Alexander16

,

Tell Mikhmoreth is at the estuary of the river, while Tell Ifshar (Tell Hefer) is

situated ca. 5 km upstream of the navigable river, and can be described as an inland

harbor settlement (Raban, 1985: 17; Chernoff and Paley, 1998: 399; Taffet, 2001:

130). River harbors in the Levant can be used as a model to identify harbor

settlements in Cilicia and the Amuq plain. Most likely, inhabitants in Cilicia and the

Amuq Plain, which were enclosed by mountain ranges like the Levant, used estuaries

of navigable rivers as harbors.

In Mesopotamia, however, there are many indications that Bronze Age

harbors were not entirely natural, but that favorable locations were improved in

various ways to make the harbor more suitable against possible perilous natural and

man-made factors. In Mesopotamia and Egypt, river harbors were used in a different

configuration. Levantine harbors were directly on rivers; whereas harbors in

Mesopotamia and Egypt were on canals, which were dug to supply water for

irrigation in the arid region (Postgate, 1992: 174, 179). They also facilitated river

transport as in ancient Egypt (Hassan, 1997: 52, 54, 62; Wells, 2004: 24). The Old

16

The river was being used for transportation of crops until the 19th

century AD and at least small

boats could be towed on it now (Taffet, 2001: 130; Marcus et al., 2008: 221).

20

Babylonian urban site of Mashkan-shapir (Tell Abu Duwari) illustrates river harbors

for southern Mesopotamia (Stone and Zimansky, 1992; 2004). The city, which was

located between the ancient Tigris and Euphrates rivers, was divided by digging

water channels, two of which were major canals (Stone and Zimansky, 2004: 327).

The site had at least two river harbors where the large canals crossed with smaller

ones: the east and the west harbors (Stone and Zimansky, 2004: 328). In Egypt,

navigational networks were excavated in the Nile Delta to connect the Nile to the

city of Giza in the MBA (Raban, 1991: 138; Marriner and Morhange, 2007: 158).

Another MB site with modified harbors is Tell el Dab’a17

, on the bank of the

Pelusiac branch of the Nile. It functioned as an inland harbor settlement via a

navigational channel which reached the sea (Bietak, 1996: 3, 20).

This distinction between river harbors in the Levant, Mesopotamia and Egypt

could be rooted in the regime of rivers. The wide or long rivers in Mesopotamia (the

Tigris and Euphrates) and the Nile in Egypt were subject to natural and catastrophic

floods or overflowing when the volume of water increased annually. Therefore, sites

were situated away from rivers and the water was brought into sites by canals to

avoid floods (Postgate, 1992: 174, 177). However, rivers in the Levant, Cilicia and

the Amuq offered safer conditions for habitation, since the rivers were shorter or

smaller and flow in deep valleys (such as the Göksu and the Asi). In addition, swamp

areas in Cilicia could absorb the water from overflowing. Therefore, areas near rivers

were settled and estuaries could have been used as harbors.

17

Tell el Dab’a had more than one harbor because the water level of the Nile varied in a year

(Tronchere et al., 2008: 338). It is highly likely the site had three harbors: first in the middle of the

town, second was to the south, third at the north of the town (Forstner-Müller, 2009: 12). The site

followed the Levantine harbor patterns thanks to immigration from the Levant in the Hyksos period

(see Bietak, 1996).

21

The modifications, some of which could be documented in the Levant,

involved some common measures to make harbors suitable for boats, instead of the

type of river harbor known in Mesopotamia and Egypt. A barrier or a dam could be

built upriver to reduce silting, which threatens to close off the river outlet, or a

navigational channel was dug to transfer the river opening to a more suitable area

(Raban, 1988: 200; 1991: 137; 1995: 144; Taffet, 2001: 128). The channel enables

the docking basin of harbors to join the sea (Frost, 1995: 6; Raban, 1995: 145). These

patterns are observed along the eastern Mediterranean coast at a number of Middle

and Late Bronze sites such as MB Tell Akhziv, Tell Misrefot Yam, Tell Mikhmoreth

and Tel Poleg in Israel, and a lagoonal harbor of Malia in Crete (Raban, 1985: 19;

1991: 137, 139-140; Taffet, 2001: 128, 130). Modifications like these, involving a

channel and a stone quay18

, are also recognized at Sirkeli (explained in the section

5.2.6 of Chapter 5) in Cilicia (Novák and Kozal, 2011: 44). Other types of

modifications, such as excavating harbors to make them larger, and stabilizing their

banks with masonry, are not found in Cilicia and the Amuq. It seems that these

measures to keep estuaries free of silting were not permanent against

geomorphological changes (Raban, 1985: 12, 19). However, the coastline saw a more

rapid change in the first millennium BC than in the second millennium, and

geomorphologic changes affected the coastline only slowly.

Finally, in the eastern Mediterranean, many harbor settlements used more

than one harbor, combining a natural anchorage or sea port on the coast with another

18

Middle Egyptian literary tales refer to quays as landing places where boats were approached and

were connected a rope (Simpson, 1973:50, 59, 70); A text from Ugarit refers to a damaged ship

because of crashing into the quay of Ura (Otten, (1975) as cited in Dinçol et al., 2000: 10). Bronze

Age quays are also known from Egyptian pictorial evidence which depicted ships on quays of the Nile

harbors (Höckmann, 2006: 312, fig. 1.7-8, 314, fig. 2.1).

22

one inside the river estuary. The pattern can be exemplified by Tell Tweini in Syria

(Al-Maqdissi et al., 2007: 6) and Kinet Höyük in Cilicia (Ozaner, 1995: 516; Gates,

1999b: 305). Tell Abu-Hawam also had three ports: a natural bay, river mouth and

lagoon (Taffet, 2001: 129). Sidon had a number of harbors: two natural bays, two sea

harbors (one of which was the island), and one river harbor (Carayon et al., 2011/12:

434, 437, 439-449). It is known that lagoon formations also were used as harbors in

the second millennium BC. Tell Dor had two lagoons as its MB harbors in addition

to a natural anchorage (Raban, 1995: 145; Taffet, 2001: 130). It is likely that LB Ras

Shamra (Ugarit) also exploited a number of harbors (Astour, 1970: 114-116): Minet

el-Beidha and Ras Ibn Hani as sea ports are determined (see below, the section 5.5 of

Chapter 5). It is possible that using more than one harbor would have been associated

with natural conditions (wind conditions) as well as for special purposes (trans-

shipment) (Raban, 1995: 139). Wind and weather conditions might have determined

which harbor to use or harbors of a site would have served different purposes, river

harbors being more convenient to transport goods to the interior.

3.2 Artifacts as Evidence for Harbor Settlements

Artifacts which are indicators of cultural interactions by boat also provide

indirect evidence for harbor settlements. In this section, these artifacts, ranging from

pottery, seals, shell and raw materials will be limited to types which are specific for

harbor settlements.

23

3.2.1 Ceramics

Some characteristic types of pottery, and their contents, circulated along the

eastern Mediterranean as koine by boat. These major types are Cypriot pottery19

,

Mycenaean pottery from the Greek mainland, and “Canaanite” jars from Levantine

regions. These ceramics can roughly be divided into two categories: ceramics as

commercial containers or for storage and ceramics as commercial goods (Matthӓus,

2006: 345). In this part, ceramics as containers for maritime trade will primarily be

considered. Most of them were initially produced as packaging to carry organic

goods (Sherratt and Sherratt, 1991: 362).

A prevalent and widely distributed type is the “Canaanite” jar20

or amphora,

designed as commercial container for the MB and LBA maritime transport (Figure

10) (Sherratt and Sherratt, 1991: 364). This jar type which was produced in various

areas in the Levant or land of Canaan21

was found in the LBA Uluburun shipwreck

and harbor settlements in the eastern Mediterranean (Yalçın et al., 2006: 583;

Pedrazzi, 2010: 53; Ownby and Smith, 2011). It was produced in a standardized

shape22

and capacity (10-14 or seldom 18-22 litres) (Pedrazzi, 2010: 53-54). Over a

hundred “Canaanite” jars from the Uluburun shipwreck prove that these jars carried

Pistacia (terebinth) resin and liquid (oil and wine) as well as olives in a boat as

19

Widely distributed types White Slip Ware or “milk bowl”, Base Ring ware, White Shaved Ware,

Monochrome Ware (and possibly Red Lustrous Wheel Made Ware). 20

The name of “Canaanite” for this jar type derives from in the research of V. Grace and R. Amiran

(Pedrazzi, 2010: 53). The type was used as containers from the late MBA (Ownby and Smith, 2011:

279). 21

This jar also locally produced in some LBA Cypriot sites (Ownby and Smith, 2011: 277). 22

Its conical body narrows to a pointed base from the shoulder, which is the widest part and has two

handles (Yalçın et al., 2006: 583; Pedrazzi, 2010: 53). However, Pedrazzi’s (2010) analysis shows that

this standardized shape have been morphologically changed in Syrian coast, Cyprus and Southern

Anatolia between the end of LBA and the beginning of the Iron Age: its conical body transformed

“slightly carinated shoulder and rounded bellied” and its carrying capacity also was large (20-40

litres) (Pedrazzi, 2010: 54).

24

containers (Yalçın, 2006: 23). These jars were not only used as containers along the

sea voyage, but also for the storage of organic goods in Levantine warehouses until

their distribution or departure. The best illustration is, the “Canaanite” jars stored in a

LBA warehouse of Minet el-Beidha (Figure 11) (Sauvage, 2007: 618-619).

“Canaanite” jars, which could be carried by boat, also were imported from Syria-

Palestine to Egyptian river harbors like Tell el Dab’a23

and Memphis (Bietak, 1991;

Ownby and Smith, 2011: 279). They are an indication of transfer from sea to river

transport. “Canaanite” jars in Tell Tweini, which are similar to the jars of Ugarit and

Tarsus in Cilicia, (Vansteenhuyse, 2008: 111), attest to maritime activity between

sites in the same route. “Canaanite” jars are also known from Kinet Höyük in Cilicia

(Gates, 1999b: 307).

Another common type of container was the pithos, a big ceramic vessel

(Figure 12). These containers were designed as a safe package for land storage as

well as in a boat and during transshipment24

(Artzy, 1994: 138; Pulak, 2006: 81). At

least three out of ten Cypriot pithoi from the Uluburun shipwreck were packed with

Cypriot ware (Hirschfeld, 2006: 108). These containers from the shipwreck give

significant information about how breakable goods were packaged and transported

via maritime trade (Hirschfeld, 2006:109). This information can also explain how

considerable amounts of ceramics from overseas were transported to inland centers,

such as Cypriot ceramics to Tell el Dab’a (Bietak, 1991) and at Tell Atchana in the

23

About two million “Canaanite” jars were found as containers however, some of them used at

funerary context at this site in the MBA (Bietak, 1991: 41; 1996: 20).Tell el Dab’a (MBA) also

presents other ceramics mostly jars, some of them originated in the Levant, Ugarit, the Amuq or

Cilicia as well as Cyprus, and the Aegean (Bietak, 1991; Marcus, 2007: 160, 162-163; Marcus et al.,

2008: 236). 24

Egyptian pictorial evidence (on the representation of Theban tomb of Kenamon) also supports the

usage of the pithos as container in a boat (Artzy, 1994: 138).

25

Amuq (Bergoffen, 2005) (see below, the section 5.4.1 of Chapter 5). Valuable raw

materials were also put into pithoi. These pithoi were attested at other harbor

settlements like Ugarit, Tel Nami, Tell Abu Hawam25

and Tell Tweini, as local

imitations of Cypriot types (Artzy, 1994: 138; 2006: 52; Vansteenhuyse, 2008: 110).

In addition, some small or large closed forms such as juglets, bottles, jugs and

jars were used as containers for liquid organic materials, whether they were “bottled

at source” (Sherratt and Sherratt, 1991: 362-363) or not (Maguire, 1995: 54). In other

words, a producer region might itself use ceramic packaging as containers or its

ceramic containers might have been packed with foreign goods.

Moreover, pottery26

was also widely imported to the eastern Mediterranean as

commercial goods because of functional demand and aesthetic value (Matthӓus,

2006: 346) alongside its contents. The Uluburun shipwreck proves that Cypriot

finewares or table ware (mainly bowls and jugs) were imported for their own sake in

ceramic containers as commercial goods by boats (Figure 13) (Hirschfeld, 2006:

105). Whether these ceramics were used as containers in receiver regions or in their

own right, they reflect strong interregional or overseas interaction by boat.

3.2.2 Local Trends in Ceramic Styles

Local ceramics also can be used as an index for harbor settlements (Gates,

1999b: 305). In other words, occupants in harbor settlements reflect cultural mix

through the decoration and form of their local ceramics. Foreign ceramics were

25

In the Carmel coast of Israel, Tel Abu Hawam on the Qishon river, Tel Akko, is located north of the

Na’aman river and Tell Nami, is located near the Me’arot river, are also defined as river harbor

settlements where ceramics and metal industry maintained (Artzy, 1994: 123; 2006:46, 49-50). The

coast also took place at the sailing routes of boats in that time (Artzy, 2006: 59). 26

Some Cypriot ceramics (ongoing from MBA and LBA) and Mycenaean ceramics (especially from

LBA) were imported (Matthӓus, 2006: 346).

26

locally imitated; the production was made in different shapes from the original ones

thanks to the cosmopolitan nature of overseas interaction. For example, some Cypriot

and Palestinian ceramic practices were adapted at Tell el Dab’a (Figure 14) (Bietak,

1996: 59). MBA local ceramics in Tell Ifshar were seen in north Syrian forms with

local motifs (Marcus et al., 2008: 236-237). The LBA local ceramics in Tell Abu

Hawam27

were also similar to Cypriot fabrics (Artzy, 2006: 54-55). A group of local

Syrian ceramics in Alalakh essentially derived from a MBA Cypriot style (Maguire,

1995: 55).

3.2.3 Shipwrecks and Their Cargos

Apart from ceramics, other archaeological materials which were being carried

by boats between harbors, give insight into harbor settlements. These finds were

found at eastern Mediterranean harbor settlements and at the LBA shipwrecks28

of

Cape Gelidonya (Bass, 1967) and Uluburun (Yalçın et al., 2006) as cargos.

Shipwrecks themselves are archaeological indications of the presence of

harbor settlements as well as overseas interaction. They also illustrate the ship-

building industry which would have been supplied with timber from forests in the

Levant, Cilicia and the Amuq (see below, Chapter 4). Shipwrecks also can answer

questions such as how materials were being transported across the eastern

27

Anatolian, Aegean and Egyptian pottery was also found at Tell Abu Hawam (Artzy, 2006: 52, 55). 28

Until now no MBA shipwreck has been discovered, however, a written source of early 12th

Dynasty

of Middle Kingdom (the Mit Rahina inscription) shows that cargos, some of which are cedar, resin,

metals, ivory, building stones and people, were carried from the northern Levant (Lebanon, Syria and

probably Cilicia) to Egypt by more than one ships (Marcus, 2007: 132-157,173-176).

27

Mediterranean. The transport by boat permitted tons of goods to reach harbors. The

cargo of the Uluburun29

well represents the importance of harbor settlements.

A first material is copper in “oxhide” ingots, found at terrestrial sites30

as

well (Gale and Stos-Gale, 2006: 120; Pulak, 2006: 64-65). In addition, analyses of

some lead and silver items from the Uluburun and Ras Ibn Hani and Mochlos in

Crete correspond with mineral reserves in the Taurus Mountains (Soles, 2005: 434-

435; Gale and Stos-Gale, 2006: 127, 131-132). It means that the Cilician harbors

must have been used to transport metals by boat (Soles, 2005: 435-437).

In addition, eastern Mediterranean objects, which were produced by the

meeting of cultures and ideas, emphasize the cosmopolitan character of harbor

settlements. For example, Levantine workmanship and Egyptian iconography were

combined on jewelry, one example of which is known from Uluburun: a gold

pendant with a representation of the goddess Astarte (Figure 15) (Pulak, 2006: 68;

Yalçın et al., 2006: 597), a type known from the MBA southern Palestine (Tell el

Ajjul) (Tubb, 1998: 65), was also found at Minet el Beidha (Yon, 2006: 166, fig.

58a).

29

The wreck includes raw (metal and glass in form of ingots, unworked hippo and elephant ivory,

organic bulk), manufactured and luxury objects (jewelries made from gold, silver, bronze, precious

stones and faience and glass by both local and foreign interactions; bronze weapons and tools; seals,

scarabs, weights) and materials for shipboard use and shipbuilding (lamps, and stone anchors, timber)

as well (Bass, 1986; Yalçın et al., 2006). 30

According to lead isotope analyses of these ingots from shipwrecks, copper ores in the island of

Cyprus was responsible for them (Gale and Stos-Gale, 2006: 121, 124,127). These were distributed to

Germany, France, Sardinia, Sicily, Greece, Crete, Bulgaria, central Anatolia, Syria, the Nile delta and

Iraq (Gale and Stos-Gale, 2006: 120; Müller-Karpe, 2006: 493; Pulak, 2006: 63-64). Oxhide ingots in

Mochlos, Crete also match Cypriot copper ores (Soles, 2005: 435; Gale and Stos-Gale, 2006: 127).

Besides, one round copper ingot in Kuşaklı/Sarissa, central Anatolia corresponds to Cypriot ores

(Müller-Karpe, 2006: 493).

28

3.2.4 Boats

Thirdly, depictions of boats, which are mostly known from the Aegean and

Egypt31

(Höckmann, 2006: 311-312, fig.1, 314, fig. 2, 317-318, 320, fig. 5-6, 321),

can be attributed as archaeological evidence for Levantine harbor settlement patterns.

Boats are illustrated on seals from Tell el Dab’a (Porada, (1984) as cited in Marcus

(2007: 154) and Ugarit (Figure 16, 17) (Amiet, 1992: 106, fig.42.232; Höckmann,

2006: 314, fig. 2.6, 316) and on a Canaanite jar from Tell Tweini (Figure 18)

(Bretschneider and Lerberghe, 2008b: 33, 38, fig. 3.39); incised on an altar at Tell

Akko (Artzy, 2006: 50), and carved into rocks on the Carmel Mount Ridge

surrounding of Tell Nami (Artzy, 1994: 138). These depictions show that Levantine

coastal settlements were engaged as harbors in sea-oriented activities.

Stone anchors are another class of artifacts referring to boats. However,

Middle and Late Bronze anchors are mainly known from cultic contexts as votive

objects from Ugarit and its harbor Minet el Beidha, Cyprus (Kition and Hala Sultan

Tekke), and Crete (Malia, Kommos) (Wachsmann, 1998: 259, 273, 279; Ward and

Zazzaro, 2010: 40). Sea activity was thus well integrated into the lifestyle of the

harbor settlement.

3.2.5 Marine Industries

Crushed murex shell is an archaeological evidence for dye industry32

. The

industry required experts and the proximity of the sea (Ruscillo, 2005: 100, 102-

31

A notable example which is known from the tomb of Kenamon at Thebes (14th century BC) shows

that Syrian ships approached an Egyptian river harbor and porters carried loads like finds from the

Uluburun (Bass, 1986: 293; Pulak, 1998: 214-215; Höckmann, 2006: 314, fig.2.1). 32

The earliest purpled-dye industry may be derived from the Aegean; especially Crete (MBA),

according to Murex shells from Kommos (Ruscillo, 2005:101).

29

104). By the LBA, it was exploited throughout the Levantine harbor settlements

(such as Minet el-Beidha33

, Tell Akko and Tell Abu Hawam) and Cilicia (Kinet

Höyük) (Gates, 1999a: 263; 1999b: 308; Artzy, 2006: 55; Reese, 2010: 120-121,

124). The Uluburun boat34

also carried thousands of Murex opercula, as raw material

for the manufacture of incense, which could have been defined as another by-product

of the Murex dye industry (Pulak, 2006: 74-75).

3.3 Architectural Features Specific to Harbors

Harbor settlements combined different traditions through external

interaction. In the MB and LBA, they participated fully in the urban development of

the eastern Mediterranean region (Raban, 1985: 14; 1995: 143). In a general schema,

architectural spaces and elements in these harbor settlements were coordinated with

the requirements of the site. Building complexes include storerooms, living spaces,

workspaces, and a system to supply water. Like the inland settlements, they were

protected by ramparts and fortification walls which were strengthened by towers and

city gates.

The one architectural structure specific to the harbors is the warehouse, which

could store goods in containers (ceramics or sacks) for public or commercial

purpose, whether for local consumption or waiting for transshipping (Sauvage, 2007:

621-623). Such a warehouse is well illustrated in the LBA seaport of Ugarit at Minet

el-Beidha (Figure 11). It is possible that the warehouse consisted of more than one

room, and was arranged as a long building (Sauvage, 2007: 619-620). Rooms in the

33

Ugaritic texts refer to “blue purple wool” and “red blue purple wool” which were shipped from

Ugarit (Heltzer, 1999: 446-447). 34

It is not known that some “Canaanite” jars from the wreck include some residues of blue, red textile

were dyed with the Murex dye (Barber (1991: 230-233), as cited in Pulak (2006: 84).

30

warehouses must have been arranged according to the goods for which they were

designed. For instance, Sauvage stated that the dimension of a room of the

warehouse, which when excavated contained 80 two-handled jars, could be ca. 3.20

m x 4 m (Sauvage, 2007:619-620)35

. Clearer examples for warehouses are known

from other sites such as in Crete at Knossos, Malia and Mochlos and at Kalavassos

Ayios on Cyprus (Sauvage, 2007: 621). Warehouses in these sites indicate that a

warehouse consisted of more than one adjacent gallery, to form a long building

(Sauvage, 2007: 621). It is likely that buildings intended as warehouses were built

along the riversides (Blackmann, 1982: 92) as installations to store goods at river

harbors.

Another specific architectural structure is the shipshed, whose function is to

store ships (Shaw, 2006: 124). Kommos, a seaport town in south Crete, had a similar

LB construction with six adjacent galleries (Figure 19) (Shaw, 2006: 124). The

structure, whose one room was ca. 5.60 m. wide (Shaw, 2006: 124; Sauvage, 2007:

621), was identified by Shaw as a shipshed rather than a warehouse for goods, since

its open side faced to the sea (Shaw, 1990: 426-427; 2006:124-125). The shipshed

functioned to protect boats from natural threat (strong winds and waves) particularly

in winter seasons (Shaw, 2006: 39). The shipshed or a building with similar function

is not yet known from other sea ports36

or river harbors.

35

The dimension can give at least, an idea to illustrate a storeroom capacity in LB harbors. If a room

in this size could include 80 jars (Canaanite jars were not small), a warehouse with more than one

room could have housed a considerable amount of goods and thus, a warehouse could define a main

building for harbor settlements (Sauvage, 2007: 619-620). 36

A textual reference from Ugarit mentions that ships were stored “at royal stores” (Heltzer, 1999:

432).

31

CHAPTER 4

THE IMPORTANCE OF RIVERS AND RIVER TRANSPORT

The importance of the river for the theme of this thesis is derived from the

relationship between people and rivers. First of all, rivers provide a water source and

fertile and flat lands for human livelihood. Therefore, the location of the river could

define a pattern for the distribution of its settlements. Second, rivers offer inland

routes, especially towards the highlands, for the movement of people and transport of

goods. Thirdly, people modify river beds to build systems for water supply and

maintenance such as irrigation channels and dams, especially in drier areas

(Wilkinson, 2003: 45). Finally, and relevant for this thesis, rivers define a pattern for

the distribution of harbor settlements in the second millennium BC, since people

used estuaries as harbors by modifying them to some extent (Raban, 1985; 1991).

According to geomorphological studies in deltas, and to ancient authors, it is

likely that estuarine areas presented more appropriate circumstances for river harbor

and transport in the second millennium BC than in later times. Aegean coastal

changes of the fifth century BC were recorded by ancient authors (Horden and

Purcell, 2000: 313-314). The Cilician case was recorded by Strabo who noted rapid

32

progradation in the delta of the river Pyramus (the ancient Ceyhan) so that he thought

the Cilician coast would rapidly unite with Cyprus (Horden and Purcell, 2000: 314).

The depth of the water in the second millennium BC could enable boats to access the

river harbors by less effort than in later times37

(Semple, 1971: 106-107).

4.1 River Transport

In Cilicia and Amuq regions, the coastline was encircled by mountains which

obstruct overland transport, since the contact between the interior and the coast

requires passing over mountains. It seems that only rivers provided suitable transport

(Raban, 1991: 131). Plying between inland and coast by boat shortens the method of

transport and prevents excessive waste of man and animal power. What advantage

did river transport offer? A single small river boat can carry an average load of one

ton, which is equal to the load carried by 15 mules on flat land. It can be said that the

boat was the essential tool to carry more goods safely. It is likely that Cilician coastal

communities, who established overseas contact with Cyprus by boat from about 8000

BC (Ammerman, 2011: 33-34), and communities in the west of the Amuq plain38

,

who used Anatolian obsidian sources for stone tools from Neolithic/ Early

Chalcolithic times (Pamir, 2005: 70) could provide the river transport to the interior.

In the second millennium BC, river harbors, whether they were river-sea harbors or

inland river harbors could be used for the trans-shipping of goods, which were

37

River depositions in the estuaries became an important problem for harbors on river mouths because

silting reduced the water depth at river mouths; the harbor of Ephesos on the mouth of the Cayster

Meander river, suffered from silting and ships did not reach the harbor because it had become too

shallow in the first millennium BC like other Mediterranean river harbors (Semple, 1971: 107). 38

The Amanus ranges between Cilicia and the west of the Amuq plain, which were inaccessible

because of vegetation and straight lying mountain to the coast, allow considering boat traffic between

the two regions as their only link (Rowton, 1967: 269; Boardman, 2002: 329).

33

delivered by seagoing vessels, to the interior (Blue, 1997: 38). The location of the 2nd

millennium occupations near riverbanks would indicate a predictable possibility of

an inland transport provided by rivers. In this framework, it is possible that the MBA

and LBA coastal settlements like Tarsus, Kinet Höyük and Sabuniye could have

enabled their regions to participate in the 2nd

millennium BC network through their

river-sea harbors. Cargo delivered to the coastal harbors could have been transferred

to a river transport network inland by river boats. It can be inferred that some sites on

the middle course of the Ceyhan could act as inland harbors like Sirkeli. Other LBA

settlements north of Sirkeli were situated alongside the river bank such as Mercin,

Küçük Mantık, Yarım Höyük39

; these inland sites must have been reached by river

transport (Map 3) (Taffet, 2001: 132). The river must have been exploited to connect

with settlements on both riverbanks and to access the coast (Taffet, 2001: 132).

Goods arriving from overseas to the mouth of the Ceyhan river were then transported

along the river to inland harbors like Misis and from there, to Sirkeli, Mercin and

even Tatarlı Höyük40

; or from Misis to Küçük Mantık to Yarım Höyük and vice

versa in the northeastern plain (Taffet, 2001: 132). Similar distribution was observed

along the Göksu valley (Map 2). Yakar (2000: 367) noted that the region’s nomadic

population could assist in transporting goods in their seasonal cycle by land route;

and they could provide the timber from the Taurus Mountains. In the same vein,

cargo might have been transported on the river Göksu toward the interior by river

boats. Goods would have been shipped from Cyprus by boat to Silifke where the

mouth of the river acted as harbor (Ura?). The goods would have been transferred by

39

Hittite occupation at these mounds was determined by Seton-Williams (1954: 122, fig. 1,163, 172). 40

The site, which is situated 50 km east of Ceyhan district and 20 km north of the Iskenderun Bay,

had an administrative character during the millennium; a Hittite bulla and seals in Mitannian influence

were found at Tatarlı Höyük (Girginer, 2010: 76-77, 80, 83-84).

34

river boats from there near Kilise Tepe, then by boat until the impassable Çoğla

canyon. Transport then depended on the land route for two km until the valley

widened again and goods reached around the modern town of Bucakkışla in

Karaman by river (In fact, the route was suggested as pathway in Newhard et al.,

2008). Otherwise, goods from overseas could not be carried inland by a safe route.

4.2 River Boats

In order to understand river transport for this period, the available information

about river boats should be examined. It is known that rivers were used for transport

of goods and people from early Holocene in various parts of the world (Anderson,

2010: 6). To exploit river transport, the forms of small boats were adapted for this

purpose such as log boats41

, rafts, reef boats and skin boats (McGrail, 2010: 99-100).

Mesopotamia, Egypt, Europe, and the western Mediterranean provide clear evidence

about river boats from prehistoric and Roman times. Unfortunately, there is no

physical evidence to suggest a Bronze Age river craft for rivers in Cilicia and Amuq.

It is difficult to give a certain dimension of river boats since the size of the

boats was associated with the extent and depth of the rivers as well as the

environment of the rivers. Long navigable rivers made it possible to use large boats:

on the Nile, various kinds of boats such as sailing and planked boats are attested

already in the third millennium BC (McGrail, 2010: 101-102). However, small boats

and rafts were appropriate for small rivers, which were suitable for inland transport

like in the Norwegian river system (Nymoen, 2008: 7).

41

Logboats was produced by hollowing a log (McGrail, 2010: 99).

35

It is important that various boats could be used in different types of rivers and

a generalization will not be useful. However, according to available data, two

features could be required for river craft to provide efficient transport on rivers:

propulsion and stability with loads. A pole could be adapted to a river boats for

punting or sailing propulsion. The stability of a cargo boat and its carrying capacities

would be considered more important than its velocity or movement speed (Pomey,

2011: 30).

The choice of the propulsion technique depended on the river environment as

well as prevailing winds. The Nile’s flow direction (north) and prevailing wind

direction (south) allowed the use of sails (Johnstone, 1988: 76). However, river boats

could not sail upstream in Mesopotamian rivers, which flow south, unless the

direction of the wind shifted south (Johnstone, 1988: 77). Towing or hauling

propulsion by animal and man power was therefore used for upstream travel (Figure

20) (Johnstone, 1988: 77; Margueron 2004: 77-78). Another possibility is that

unsuitable circumstances of the river environment such as waterfalls, shallow water

toward upstream, inconvenient direction of the prevailing wind, border or division of

river courses and desert were bypassed on land roads with donkey or mules

(Johnstone, 1988: 77). In this respect, watercrafts would have not been abandoned at

a riverside, since they were made from valuable material like timbers which are not

found in all regions. River crafts could have been manufactured to adapt to such

conditions. It is likely that boats and ships could be built so as to be disassembled

and to reuse the materials. Ward (2006) suggests such practices to pass the desert

between the Nile and the Red Sea as early as predynastic times. Remains of Egyptian

boats and ships indicate that they were designed with unlocked mortise-and-tenon

36

joints42

, in contrast to the sea-going Uluburun boat (Figure 21) (Ward, 2006: 124).

The reason for this technical system is interpreted by Ward (2006: 124, 126) so that

the hull of the ships and boats could be dismantled with ease by unlocking joints and

thus, boats were carried overland in pieces. Thus these disassembled planks, which

were often imported timbers (cedar), could be reused. LBA Ship remains from the

excavation of Mersa/Wadi Gawasis, which was a Middle and New Kingdom sea port

with man-made caves on the Egyptian Red Sea coast, reinforces Ward’s theory (Bard

and Fattovich, 2010).

Rivers offered more safety conditions for transport than sea conveyance. Sea

waves and wind conditions pose serious threat to sea crafts which could suffer from

tension on their hulls when overloaded (Monroe, 2007: 4). River crafts in the Nile

river enabled the transport of greater loads, especially timber from the Levant,

without these risks (Marcus, 2007: 153-154). In order to move larger loads, the

hauling propulsion was adapted to river craft and built river barges or lighters, that

were used starting from the 3rd

millennium BC in Egypt and in Mesopotamia

(Monroe, 2007: 4-6). Stability was achieved for river craft in the Nile by using

woodworkers’ techniques (mortise-and-tenon joints and traverse lashing) and the

boats were modified into seagoing ships by small changes to reinforcing planking

links (Polzer, 2011: 353-354, 359-360). By achieving stability, Nilotic crafts could

carry hefty stone blocks, long timbers and other heavy loads whether they were

sailing or not (Monroe, 2007: 4-5). As an illustration of riverine transport in Egypt,

the barge of the Queen Hat-shepsut (ca. 1470 BC) from the New Kingdom was at

42

“Mortise-and-tenon: A union of planks or timbers by which a projecting piece (tenon) was fitted

into one or more cavities (mortises) of corresponding size.” (Steffy, 2011: 1137).

37

minimum 60 m. long, and could transport tons (a couple of obelisks weighed about

600-700 tons) (Monroe, 2007: 4). A barge of this dimension could have been made

by lashing several hulls of boats together and might have been hauled by other small

boats (Höckmann, 2006: 318). Because the river offered less risk, boats designed for

river transport could be made in large sizes.

However, the size of Nile boats was exceptional. The size of Bronze Age

boats and ships varied from 10 m. to 20 m. and their carrying capacities reached

maximum 20 tons, according to shipwreck records and textual analyses (Monroe,

2007: 2, 6, 9, 15). The Uluburun ship (16 m. long, with a capacity of ca. 20 tons) was

large enough to be considered “one big ship” sufficient for transport of LBA grain

demand, which was ca. 7.7 tons,43

as a single cargo (Monroe, 2007: 3, 7, 9). A letter

from Ugarit which is analyzed by Monroe (2007) describes the situation:

Now, the people from Ura have requested food from His Majesty (and) His

Majesty has assigned to them two thousand (measures of) barley from

Mukish. And you, give them one big ship and (its) sailors in order to transport

this barley to their country; they will bring (it) in one or two turns. You must

not deny them the ship! . . . (It is a matter of) life and death! (Hoftijzer and

Van Soldt (1998: 341), quoted in Monroe (2007: 3).

Moreover, a flat-bottomed vessel could be an advantage for a boat used for

river transport in terms of stability. In Mesopotamian and Egyptian depictions, flat-

bottomed boats were used for river transport from the third millennium BC (Stieglitz,

1984: 134-135). In MBA Anatolia, terracotta models of boats from Kültepe in central

Anatolia were also made in the form of small flat-bottomed boats (Figure 22)

43

According to Monroe’s analysis (2007: 8), the liquid unit of the sutu which is most suitable unit for

the unspecified grain measure mentioned in the Hittite text is within the range from 6 to 12 liters;

2000 sutu is equivalent to 14.000 liters and 7.7 tons and the Uluburun could be loaded about 20 tons

and the ship’s capacity eligible for definition as a big ship.

38

(Özgüç, 2005: 185-192, fig. 219-224). These terracotta models must be

representative of river boats were used in Anatolian rivers. Such a boat cannot

be fast, but a flat bottomed boat is more efficient in rivers. It allows a boat to float

even in shallow waters, since the flat bottom makes good contact on water and the

bottom hardly penetrates the water. It also increases the carrying capacity of the boat

by expanding volume space.

Furthermore, having a light weight also facilitates carrying and hauling it

upstream, prevents the bottom of the boat from rubbing stones in shallow waters, and

enhances the load capacity (Nymoen, 2008: 12, 14).

According to Nymoen (2008: 3), in the first millennium BC, logboats were

used as “inland boats”, which means river boats, in Norwegian rivers and lakes. The

dimension of a logboat varied from 3m. to 5 m. long and 55- 60 cm wide (Nymoen,

2008: 7; McGrail, 2010: 99). The form of the boat can be defined as bow-shaped,

like the Roman barges or lighters with rounded hull to bow and stern and flat bottom,

which were used for river transport (Johnstone, 1988: 158; Nymoen, 2008: 6). This

type of boat was easily dragged down to the water and had a pole, whose top is

wrapped with a rope, for hauling it upstream by people or animals (Johnstone, 1988:

157-158). In case of suitable wind and weather conditions, a sail was used to

navigate the rivers as well as travel inshore.

In addition, skin-float rafts were also a suitable type to travel downstream on

fast-flowing rivers such as the Tigris and Euphrates (Johnstone, 1988: 30, 37).

According to Assyrian representations and historical sources, the skin-float rafts

were used for downstream navigation in Mesopotamia for timber transport (Linder,

1986: 273, 277). The use of this type of boat continued for the same purpose on these

39

rivers (Tigris and Euphrates) in the Ottoman Empire and even they were observed in

the Ceyhan river in the nineteenth century AD.44

In this century, sailing ships were seen in the Seyhan and Ceyhan rivers by

travelers. Sailings and a rowing boat on the Seyhan were depicted by a traveler,

Langlois (Girginer, 2000: 81; Yıldırım, 2010: 14). Sailing boats could have

approached Taşköprü (stone bridge) near Tepebağ Höyük45

, Adana (Figure 23)

(Girginer, 2000: 81; Yıldırım, 2010: 14). Pamir (2002: 295; 2005: 69) stated that

river boats were used in the Asi for transport and to sail up to Sabuniye in the

twentieth century AD. They are good candidates for harbor settlements in the MB

and LBA, and their navigability in the recent past reinforces the idea of using of river

boats in these regions over a long span of time.

According to all information, it is likely that river boats could be used in these

regions from much earlier (pre-classical) periods when rivers and streams in these

regions were more navigable, before the rapid alluviation in the first half of the first

millennium BC. Besides, the local evidence from the 19th

century AD indicated that

rivers in these regions maintained navigability46

. If the Uluburun wreck is taken as

the index of a large ship size in the Bronze Age, a small-sized boat or ship would be

more appropriate for river boats or barges elsewhere than on the Nile. In addition,

such a river boat or a smaller ship might be produced inexpensively in a short time,

44

(http://www.sites.google.com/site/tekyeli/kelek). 45

Tepebağ Höyük (ancient uru

Adaniia) is situated beneath the city center of Adana (Girginer, 2000:

81). The mound, which is situated west of the Seyhan river, would be a Cilician harbor settlement

according to coast line of the second millennium BC (Girginer, 2000: 78, 81). The nurse-Sat Sneferu

statute of the Middle Kingdom funerary context was found at Tepebağ Höyük, whether Egyptian

objects (aegyptiaca) made in Egypt or objects Egyptian inspired were locally produced during the

second millennium BC or not (De Vos, 2002: 46, 48, 55; Girginer, 2000: 82). A silver Hittite pendant

was also recovered from a metal hoard in Amarna, Egypt (M. Bell, 1986). 46

The river Asi, which is the most navigable, varies in the depth of its mouth from 0.9 to 1.8 m

(Pamir, 2005: 69).

40

and could be plied in shallow water and estuaries in Cilicia and the Amuq, whether

the boats were sailed or rowed (Dinçol et al., 2000: 9; Monroe, 2007: 15).

Additionally, the existence of raw material for boat-building could also

indirectly reinforce the idea of using river boats in these regions. The moderate and

humid climatic conditions of the second millennium BC increased the density of

woodland in the Taurus and Amanos Mountains (Yakar, 2000: 17). Cedar,47

which

was local to these mountains, was preferred in ship-building48

because of its

workability and robustness like other types of long and wide trees (Mikesell, 1969:

13; Horden and Purcell, 2000: 336). Cedarwood49

would be used for river boats in

Cilicia and the Amuq to transport goods to the interior and perhaps from it. Absence

of direct physical evidence does not mean that rivers in these regions did not provide

river transport by boat, especially bearing in mind the impassable mountain ranges.

However, archaeological evidence can only be determined through more studies in

these regions.

Another issue is how goods were safely transported by river boats. It is very

likely that the information and experiences of both maritime and land transport

should be combined here, since both water and land routes must have been used.

Packing and unloading of goods are the backbone of transport. According to

the available information mentioned above, liquids and breakable goods could have

47

Cedrus libani (Cedar-of-Lebanon) grows in the Taurus and Amanos mountains and its subspecies

stenocoma (hardy cedar-of -Lebanon) which is between the Cedrus libani and the atlas cedar grows in

Cilician Bolkar mountains in the Taurus mountains range (Aiello and Dosmann, 2007: 26, 28). 48

Textual references (from Ugarit) indicate that “shipbuilding” was a “collective work” maintained in

“shipyards” by shipwrights and “woodcutters” with special equipment like “masts”, “hammers”

(Heltzer, 1999: 432, 449-450; Vita, 1999: 488-489) in a northern Levantine harbor for the 2nd

millennium BC. 49

In the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, cedar wood was transported by ships from the Levantine coastal

sites according to textual references (Marcus, 2007: 153-154).

41

been packaged in fragile storage vessels (jars, amphorae and pithoi) at harbor

installations where this demanding process could have been done at both the

departure and arriving harbours (Frost, 1995: 2). Transport of the goods by river

boats required at least the same care, since goods could have changed hands

repeatedly during transfers or distributions. In order to use a type of vessel as

container, it required special features. The packing had to prevent water and land-

based risks. Their survival during the voyage depended on good packing. The vessel

also needed to be rendered impermeable to prevent especially organic goods from

exposure to external factors like sunshine and moisture (Marcus, 2002: 410). It is

also critical that the storage vessel should be in a shape that can be held and carried

with ease, with handles to facilitate the transfer (Marcus, 2002: 410).

As stated by Monroe (2007: 7, 9), liquid units might have been used even for

grain rather than sacks, as an adaptation of land-based units to sea-oriented units. It is

very plausible when the humid condition of waterborne transport and the length of

the voyage are considered, since the moisture was not good for healthy storage of

cereals, a highly valuable good for the Hittites. In other words, pottery containers

were appropriate even for dry goods and goods that were not fragile.

The containers were therefore produced in a standard size and form to serve

as capacity units and as indicators for their contents (Marcus, 2002: 410); containers

(mostly amphorae) from the Uluburun ship each contain 6.7 liters (Monroe, 2007: 8).

In addition, Marcus (2007: 150) indicated that volumetric studies of ceramics were

also studied on Levantine MBA containers which were found in Levantine and

Egyptian regions. According to these studies, Levantine containers could carry 10 to

30 liters; jugs contain 4.7 and 5.3 liters (Marcus, 2007: 150). Standardization of

42

containers also could determine a boat’s regular load capacity (Marcus, 2002: 410).

The size of the containers might also have been adapted to the range of river boats, or

they could have been transferred to more than one vessel for inland distribution.

43

CHAPTER 5

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF REGIONAL HARBORS

In this chapter, harbor settlements of the 2nd

millennium BC will be

considered site by site, beginning with the sites in west Cilicia, proceeding east and

southeast to the Amuq and northern Syria, under the same administrative area as

Cilicia and the Amuq in the LBA and a gauge for harbor settlements. This chapter

will discuss archaeological finds as well as geographical settings of the sites, which

are multi-periods mounds discovered during excavations and surveys in these plains.

5.1 Western Cilicia/Rough Cilicia

5.1.1 Kilise Tepe

Kilise Tepe is about 55 km north-west of Silifke on the east side of the lower

Göksu valley (Baker et al., 1995: 148; Symington, 2001: 167). Kilise Tepe50

is the

only excavated pre-classical site in Rough Cilicia. After an initial survey, it was

excavated by J. N. Postgate from 1994-2012 (Postgate, 2007a: 3, 5).

50

The mound was surveyed by J. Mellaart (1950s) and D. French (1965) under the name of Maltepe,

which is a different and neighboring site of Kilise Tepe (Symington, 2001: 167; Postgate, 2007a: 3),

dated by pottery of the 2nd

millennium BC (Baker et al., 1995: 142-143).

44

Kilise Tepe overlooked the river Göksu, and controlled an overland route

which linked the Cilician south coast with central Anatolia, where the river valley

crossed the Taurus Mountains (Baker et al., 1995: 139; Newhard et al., 2008: 87).

The mound is located above the east bank of the river or its tributary the Kurtsuyu

(Symington, 2001: 167; Postgate, 2007b: 10). The rivers could offer a well-protected

river port at their confluence. Mounds51

in the neighborhood which gave some

evidence about their Bronze Age occupations are located on the western bank of the

river (French, 1965: 180-181). It seems that Çingen Tepe, ca. 2 km from Kilise Tepe,

could be a river harbor town for the mound. It is known that a ferry was used by

present inhabitants to cross the river and its tributaries between Kilise Tepe’s

neighboring villages Gülnar and Mut (Postgate, 2007b: 10).

Many fragments of RLWMW52

were found at Kilise Tepe from the LBA

settlement contexts (Hansen and Postgate, 1999: 113; Symington, 2001: 169;

Knappett et al., 2005: 29). A widespread opinion suggests that the origin of the ware

in Cilicia and central Anatolia is northern Cyprus (Eriksson, 1991: 81, 93; Schubert

and Kozal, 2007: 175). In that case, the ceramic assemblage can show a possible

interaction among Cyprus, the Göksu valley and the interior (Hittite heartland) by

boats (Baker et al., 1995: 182). One type from this assemblage could act as evidence

for this transport. The “arm-shaped” vessel is one of the shapes of RLWMW 53

found

51

These are At Tepe or Artepe located west of Mut, and Ören Tepe near Mut (Baker et al., 1995:142). 52

Red Lustrous Wheel Made Ware, which is a red fabric, immensely lustrous and wheel-made,

appeared between the 16th

and the 12th

centuries BC and was distributed in Cyprus proper, Egypt, the

Levant, Cilicia and central Anatolia (Knappett et al., 2005: 26-27). The homeland of the pottery is a

topic of discussion (see Eriksson, 1991; Knappett et al., 2005; and Schubert and Kozal, 2007). 53

The main shapes or types of RLWMW are the spindle bottle, lentoid or pilgrim flask, the arm

shaped vessel, and bowls (Figure 24) (Symington, 2001: 169; Knappett et al., 2005: 27).

45

at Boğazköy54

proper and other Hittite sites in the Anatolian plateau as well as Kilise

Tepe.55

Residue analyses of RLWMW support that these vessels contained a kind of

plant oil and beeswax or wax remains, which would have been used to preserve

contents (Knappett et al., 2005: 40, 49). These residues were traced in examples from

Boğazköy, indicating that this ware could serve for storing or transport (Knappett et

al., 2005: 40, 49). The analysis supports the hypothesis that RLWMW vessels arrived

in central Anatolia after long travel, such as from Cyprus to the Hittite heartland via

the Göksu valley and Kilise Tepe (Knappett et al., 2005: 49). They may have been

shipped by river boats under favorable conditions, at least for a certain part of the

route (mentioned in Chapter 4).

According to historical sources, Ura56

, which was an active harbor town of

the Hittite Empire, could be located near Silifke where the Göksu river flowed into

the sea, and its estuary could have been used as a harbor (Baker et al., 1995: 146;

Hawkins, (1995:56) as cited in Kozal (2003: 70); Postgate, 2007c: 16; Buchholz,

(1999: 51, fig. 15) as cited in Soles (2005: 437). It is possible that Ura was the

seaport of Kilise Tepe. Textual references indicate that a large quantity of grain was

supplied from Egypt and the Levant “to Ugarit and Mukish” from where it was then

shipped “to Ura” in order to reach central Anatolia (Singer, 1999: 715-718). It can be

said that ships or a ship laden with grain either was unloaded in the port of Ura or

54

Huge amounts of RLWM sherds were found in the ponds of Boğazköy, dated to ca. 1400 BC

(Schubert and Kozal, 2007: 170). 55

The origin of the group from Kilise Tepe is not properly determined (Symington, 2001: 170).

However, recent scientific analyses of examples from central Anatolia and Cyprus suggest that could

have been produced from the same source (Knappett et al., 2005: 48; Schubert and Kozal, 2007: 169,

175). Specific types or forms indicate that the group could be imports from northern Cyprus (Knappett

et al., 2005: 48; Schubert and Kozal, 2007: 169, 175). 56

Ura as a harbor appeared on written sources of Ugarit in the 13th

century BC and its location is

debated by scholars who recommended a rarity of places: Corycus in the land of Olba; the whole

territory and its harbor Corycus/Korykos north of Silifke; the port of Ayaş east of Silifke; the port of

Gilindere/Kelenderis near Aydıncık west of Silifke (Beal, 1992; Dinçol et al., 2000:14-15).

46

was transshipped to river boats on the Göksu. In addition to grain other bulk goods,

like ceramics, reached Central Anatolia via Ura.

5.2 Cilician Plain/Smooth Cilicia

5.2.1 Soli Höyük

Soli Höyük which is situated around 11 km. west of the city of Mersin is

today ca. 100 m inland from the sea (Yağcı, 2003: 93; 2011: 8). Soli Höyük has been

excavated since 1999 under the directorship of R. Yağcı (Yağcı, 2001: 159). The

mound stands in the area of ancient Pompeiopolis and its Roman harbor57

. Until now,

excavations reached the MB/LBA or “Hittite layers” as the earliest level of the

mound, which is then occupied until Byzantine times without interruption (Yağcı and

Kaya, 2009: 466).

Its geographical setting shows that the mound must have been a harbor town

from the 2nd

millennium BC onwards. Soli was a coastal settlement and was located

ca. 500 m west of the Liparis (Mezitli) river which could have flowed nearer the

mound in the Bronze Age (Yağcı, 2011: 11). It is likely that Soli used a natural bay

as a harbor as well as the river mouth (Taffet, 2001: 132).

In the second half of the LBA, the overseas interaction of Soli increased,

according to Late Bronze Cypriot pottery and (possibly Cypriot) RLWMW, which

could be related to the site’s nature as a harbor (Yağcı, 2003: 93-95; 2004:51; 2007:

178; Yağcı and Kaya, 2010: 335). Mycenaean sherds (Late Helladic IIIC) at Soli

57

The study of the harbor has been continued as a part of ROMACONS project and an underwater

survey has been conducted by H. Özdaş (Yağcı, 2010: 110; 2011: 10-11).

47

(Yağcı, 2003: 96), were associated with fragments of Mycenaean pottery at Tarsus

and Kazanlı (Sherratt and Crouwel, 1987: 329, 335). Similar decoration on these

sherds (especially spiral motifs) could show that Mycenaean pottery at Tarsus,

Kazanlı and Soli were produced in the same workshop (Yağcı, 2003: 96).

As a final point, Yağcı (2001: 161-162; 2011:8) mentioned that Soli must

have been a major harbor town and entrepot for trade goods. It could correspond well

with Hittite textual references about Ura, which must have been located near Soli

Höyük (Yağcı, 2001: 161-162). It is obvious that Soli engaged an overseas

interaction from at least LBA, and developed its role even further during the first

millennium BC.

5.2.2 Mersin-Yumuktepe Höyük

Yumuktepe is today situated ca. 3.5 km from the sea, about 12 km east of Soli

Höyük (Garstang, 1953: 1; Yağcı, 2001: 162), and ca. 30 km west of Tarsus-

Gözlükule (Garstang, 1953: 1). Yumuktepe was first excavated by J. Garstang (1936-

1939 and 1947-1948). The new excavation has been conducted by V. Sevin and I.

Caneva since 1993 (Sevin and Caneva, 1995: 27). The mound, which covers an area

of ca. 5 ha (Jean, 2006: 311), has a very long history of occupation (Garstang, 1953:

3; Sevin et al., 1997: 30, 32; Jean, 2006: 323).

Yumuktepe is located near the Soğuk Su (Efrenk or Müftü) river, which today

flows just west of the mound, but in antiquity flowed ca. 100 m east of the mound

until the shifting of its course, after Byzantine occupation (Caneva and Köroğlu,

2004: 492-493; 2010: 347-348; Caneva and Marcolongo, 2004: 26; Sevin, 2004: 15-

16). The river would have been exploited to reach the sea, and into the interior by

48

river boats. In addition, the river could have permitted access to possible harbor

installations on the coast (Taffet, 2001: 131).

A metal industry in Yumuktepe produced metal artifacts from the

Chalcolithic period onwards (Caneva, 2004: 72), and local ores in the Taurus

Mountains were exploited, at least, from EBA (Kuruçaylı and Özbal, 2005: 181,

183). Finds from the MB/LBA layers, such as bronze knives, daggers, needles,

bracelets, earrings (Garstang, 1953: 215-216; Caneva et. al, 2005: 206; Caneva and

Köroğlu, 2008: 382) point to the presence of metal workshops in houses.

RLWMW was found from settlement contexts of the second half of the 2nd

millennium (Jean, 2006: 317; Caneva and Köroğlu, 2010: 345). Late Cypriot pottery

also signified the presence of the possible interaction of Yumuktepe with overseas at

least during the later LBA (13th

century BC) (Kozal, 2005: 136-137; Jean, 2006: 317,

322, 329).

5.2.3 Tarsus-Gözlükule Höyük

The mound of Gözlükule is situated on the western bank of Tarsus/Berdan

river south of the modern town of Tarsus (Özyar, 2005: 1; Özyar et al., 2005: 48).

The first excavation of the site was conducted by H. Goldman (1934-1939; 1974-

1949). An interdisciplinary project has been directed there by A. Özyar since 2001.

The naming of the site58

under different cultures expresses its exceptional

continuity (Özyar, 2005: 1). The site might have acquired its port character and

transport of raw materials between regions in the Neolithic Period with Cyprus due

58

Tarsa in LBA; Tarshish was used in the Old Testament; Tarsos in Classical times; Tarsus in present

day (Özyar, 2005: 1).

49

to obsidian sources in the Anatolian plateau as well as north Syria and the Levant

(Özyar, 2005: 3). It maintained this character until the end of the occupation on the

mound. After the mid-second millennium BC (LBA), Gözlükule came under Hittite

influence (Goldman, 1956: 349-350; Özyar, 2005: 4), like other Cilician sites

(discussed in Chapter 6).

The geographical setting of the site made Tarsus a gateway between the sea

and the interior because of its location on the river bank and just south of the Cilician

Gates (Özyar, 2005: 1), which link the Anatolian plateau with Cilicia and its coasts.

The river, which flowed formerly along the east of the mound until Byzantine times

when the river course was changed, could support Tarsus, 15 km from the sea (Blue,

1997: 39-40; Özyar et al., 2005: 48). Tarsus could have reached the sea and the

interior for transport of goods and extracted metals as well by the river (Blue, 1997:

38; Özyar, 2005: 1; Ünlü, 2005: 145). Otherwise, the connection with the interior

was difficult when transport of goods was based on the single overland route.

The local metal sources59

and abundant metal finds certainly demonstrate a

developed metal industry in Tarsus from at least the third millennium BC until the

Classical period (Kuruçaylı and Özbal, 2005: 179). Deposits of metal tools, slags,

and molds from the LBA levels (Goldman, 1956: 45, 50) suggest a developed

metallurgy of Tarsus via its metal workshops as well as its mining.

Cypriot vessels of the 2nd

millennium BC in Tarsus have parallels with those

found at Kinet Höyük, Mersin-Yumuktepe and Soli Höyük in the second half of the

59

Metal sources or ore (tin, gold and silver) was obtained from the Bolkar and Aladağ ranges in the

Taurus (Kuruçaylı and Özbal, 2005: 179, 183-184; Özyar, 2005: 1).

50

LBA, when the relationship between Cilicia and Cyprus became more developed

(Kozal, 2005: 136-137).

Large amounts of Mycenaean pottery (type of Late Helladic IIIC pottery)

(Sherratt and Crouwel, 1987: 337, 345; Mee, 1998: 145), from the end of the LBA or

the EIA level of Tarsus (Jean, 2003: 86), indicate that Tarsus came into contact with

the Greek mainland, the Aegean, the Levantine coast and Cyprus, whether the

pottery assemblages were imported or not, since there are some parallels with all

these regions, especially in terms of decoration (Mountjoy, 2005: 85-86).

Archaeological materials suggest that Tarsus has overseas interaction from its

foundation time. According to Blue (PhD diss. Appendix I: Part II: 24?), Kazanlı

could be a candidate for Tarsus’s seaport during the second millennium BC. In

addition, the Tarsus river flowed southeast of the swamp, therefore the mouth of the

river could have acted as a river harbor in that time (Taffet, 2001: 132). It seems that

Tarsus had two harbors in this millennium, one of them, likely the river port to

transport goods and people between the mound and the sea.

5.2.4 Kazanlı

Kazanlı which is situated near Cilicia’s coastline (Seton-Williams, 1954: 160)

is east of Mersin-Yumuktepe and southwest of Tarsus-Gözlükule. The site is closer

to the sea (ca. 2 km) than these two mounds. The site was surveyed by E. Gjerstad,

who also dug soundings here (1930); and by Seton-Williams (1951) (Sherratt and

Crouwel, 1987: 325; Seton-Williams, 1954: 160). The occupation of the site began

from the end of EBA and continued to EIA according to J. Garstang’s excavation

(1936) (Sherratt and Crouwel, 1987: 326).

51

Archaeological studies on Kazanlı recorded large amounts of “Mycenaean

pottery or pottery of Mycenaean type” (Sherratt and Crouwel, 1987: 325). These

ceramics were dated to Late Helladic IIIA and IIIB (14th

-13th

centuries BC) and

mostly LHIIIC (12th

centuries BC) in the LBA context (Sherratt and Crouwel, 1987:

343; Salmeri and D’Agata, 2003: 208).

There are some major reasons behind defining Kazanlı as the harbor of

Tarsus in the second millennium BC, even if Yumuktepe seems closer to the site on a

map than Tarsus. A first reason is derived from a “geomorphological suitability” of

the southwest side of Tarsus for a seaside harbor (Blue, 1997: 40, her personal

communication with G. Evans). Kazanlı is situated on the exact location and near the

coast and even was on the coast in the Bronze Age. It was possible that Kazanlı had

harbor installations on the shore (Taffet, 2001: 131). A second archaeological reason

is that Late Mycenaean ceramics from Kazanlı (especially type LHIIIC of the 12th

century BC) correspond to those from Tarsus in terms of surface treatment and fabric

(Figure 25) (Sherratt and Crouwel, 1987: 327, 331, 337). These parallels suggest that

their Mycenaean ceramics could be derived from the same workshop (Mee, 1978:

132), whether local or not. The origin of the pottery in Kazanlı is not known, but

some of them must have been imported by boats whether from the East Aegean,

Greek mainland or Cyprus, since decoration on sherds is associated with the

Mycenaean area (Sherratt and Crouwel, 1987: 327, 332, 339-340; Salmeri and

D’Agata, 2003: 208-209).

In addition, Late Mycenaean sherds were also found south of Adana or east of

Tarsus at Tanaverdi and Yenice (Salmeri and D’Agata, 2003: 298-209); however,

Mycenaean pottery at these two sites must have come via Tarsus and Kazanlı in

52

contrast to being imported directly from overseas (Salmeri and D’Agata, 2003: 210).

Besides, a Middle Cypriot sherd was recorded for Kabarsa60

, which is not far to the

east of Tarsus (Seton-Williams, 1954: 133, 158). The sherd could indicate that

Kazanlı and Tarsus were responsible for overseas connections of inland sites like

Tanaverdi and Yenice. It is likely that those imported ceramics first reached the

harbor of Kazanlı, and were then transported to the city of Tarsus, and redistributed

east from there.

5.2.5 Domuz Tepe

The 20 m-high mound of Domuz Tepe is located ca. 35 km southwest of

Misis near Adana, and ca. 12 km from the sea (Seton-Williams, 1954: 154; Blue,

1997: 40; Yakar, 2001: 42). The site, which was also surveyed by Seton-Williams

(1951) had already been briefly excavated by Goldman (Seton-Williams, 1954: 121,

124). The mound was occupied from Chalcolithic to Medieval times (Seton-

Williams, 1954: 154).

The settlement of Domuz Tepe was established on the east bank of the

Ceyhan river (ca. 200 m away from the river now) and overlooked the river route

between Misis and the coast (Seton-Williams, 1954: 154; Yakar, 2001: 42). Domuz

Tepe would have had a river harbor, since the site was closer to the estuary of the

river in that time (Blue, 1997: 40-41). The height of the mound, which was

established on a limestone elevation, could be related to the visibility from the sea

(Yakar, 2001: 37, 42). In addition Taffet (2001: 132) mentioned that Domuz Tepe

60

Kabarsa, dated from Early Bronze Age to Roman times, was surveyed by Seton-Williams (1951)

(Seton-Williams, 1954: 158).

53

could have used lagoons along the Cilician shore as a sea harbor in this millennium.

Finds from Domuztepe include Middle Cypriot pottery and Late Mycenaean sherds

(LH IIIC) (Seton-Williams, 1954: 133, 154). These ceramics could indicate its

overseas contacts if these finds were not brought from other coastal sites.

5.2.6 Sirkeli Höyük

Sirkeli Höyük is situated ca. 5 km from the town of Ceyhan which is 40 km

east of Adana (Novák et al., 2009: 297). The survey of the mound was made by J.

Garstang (1936-1937) and Seton-Williams (1951) (Seton-Williams, 1954: 168).

Sirkeli was later excavated by B. Hrouda (1992-1996) and H. Ehringhaus (1997)

(Novák et al., 2009: 298). Excavations of Sirkeli have now been carried out by M.

Novák and E. Kozal since 2006 (Ahrens et al., 2010: 55). Archaeological studies on

Sirkeli Höyük revealed that it established contact outside its territory with the Amuq

and north Syria from the Chalcolithic period onwards (Ahrens et al., 2010: 56-57).

The settlement was associated with central Anatolia from MBA, and had influence

from overseas from LBA and during the Iron Age (Ahrens et al., 2010: 57, 60, 63).

Sirkeli was located on a road network which acted as a passage between the

interior and the coast (Seton-Williams, 1954: 123,127; Özgen and Gates, 1993: 389;

Yakar, 2001: 42). Although the site was an inland settlement, several km from the

sea, the Ceyhan river which surrounds east and north of the mound (Novák et al.,

2009: 305, fig. 1) could have given it access to the transport network of Cilicia’s

harbor settlements on the coast.

Cypriot pottery and RLWMW as well as a few Mycenaean sherds from LBA

levels and the surface of the lower city (Ahrens et al., 2010: 60; Novák and Kozal,

54

2011: 44) emphasized the importance of the site’s location, despite its being an

inland site. Alongside the pottery, two “miniature ingots”61

give parallels with

Cyprus; and “a bronze scale pan” or a salver is also known from the Uluburun

shipwreck (Ahrens et al., 2010: 60).

These finds could also indicate that Sirkeli was directly included in an

oversea or sea-based exchange network. It is likely that Sirkeli had an inland river

port via the Ceyhan river. It could be not unintended that the rock relief which

depicts the Hittite king Muwatalli II was carved on the eastern side of the mound

which was seen from the river, and cannot be viewed from the mound (Kozal

personal communication; Taffet, 2001: 132).

Geomagnetic, geo-electrical measurements62

and archaeological studies back

up the possibility of a river harbor of Sirkeli during the Bronze Age, between the

northwest side of the mound, its lower city, and south of the riverbank where a row

of large stones was discovered (Novák and Kozal, 2010: 479). These stones could

belong to the wall of a dock or a pier for a river harbor which was demonstrated by

geo-electrical measurements (Figure 26) (Novák and Kozal, 2011: 44). Furthermore,

just below the north slope of the mound, a channel, 30 m. width, and a wall east of

the channel were documented (Figure 27) (Novák and Kozal, 2011: 44). The channel

may be identified with an artificial channel of the Ceyhan river (Novák and Kozal,

2011: 44) to build a protected harbor for boats which could have been moored there

(Figure 28).

61

This type of miniature ingot was recorded from Cilicia, Palestine, Egypt, Cyprus, and some metal

hoards of Europe (Ahrens et al., 2010: 60). 62

In 2009, these geoscience studies were carried out by C. Hübner and B. Hemeier in the lower city of

Sirkeli (Novák and Kozal, 2011: 43).

55

Besides, it is understood from surface ceramics that the settlement of Sirkeli

extended beyond the channel thus, the settlement of Sirkeli must be larger than

estimated (Novák and Kozal, 2011: 44). In addition, in 1994, B. Hrouda recorded

“two smaller mounds”, in the village of Burhaniye, north of Sirkeli on the opposite

side of the river, one of them dated to the LB according to ceramic assemblages

(Ahrens et al., 2010: 62; Novák and Kozal, 2010: 479). It is possible that this mound

was connected with Sirkeli or a part of the mound (Novák and Kozal, 2010: 479;

Ahrens et al., 2010: 62), and these would have been involved in the river transport as

well.

5.2.7 Karahüyük/Erzin

Karahüyük is situated on the Erzin Plain which linked the Cilician plain and

the Amuq (Özgen and Gates, 1993: 388, 392). The mound was firstly surveyed by

Seton-Williams (1951) (Seton-Williams, 1954: 159) and then by İ. Özgen and M. -

H. Gates (1991). The site, which has been deeply buried by alluviation, was occupied

at least from Early Bronze to Medieval times (Özgen and Gates, 1993: 392).

In 5000 BP, a sea incursion occurred that enabled the site to be a seaside

harbor (Özgen and Gates, 1993: 392). The settlement of the mound initially would

have been on the shore like Kinet; however the mound is today 3.5 km inland from

the sea now because of alluvium from rivers (the Erzin and Deveyurt streams which

flows northern side of the mound) (Ozaner, 1993: 339, 341-342). The rivers changed

the site from a sea port to a river port in its later phases.

56

5.2.8 Kinet Höyük

Kinet Höyük, about 30 km north of Iskenderun in Hatay, is situated on the

eastern coast of the Bay of Iskenderun (Gates, 1994: 193; 1999a: 259; Beach and

Luzzadder-Beach, 2008: 416). Kinet Höyük63

was excavated by an interdisciplinary

team under the directorship of M.-H. Gates, from 1992-2012.

Kinet Höyük covers an area of 3.3 ha which is the largest mound of the

eastern part of the Cilicia (Gates, 1999a: 259), and matching with the size of

Levantine harbor sites64

. According to interdisciplinary studies mentioned above,

Kinet had two harbors in the 2nd

millennium BC where boats could approach: a bay

and an estuary (Gates, 1999b: 305; 2003b: 17)

Settlement in Kinet Höyük65

started in the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic

period (ca. 5300 BC) and continued until the end of the Hellenistic period (50 BC)

when the river silted up (Grave et al., 2008: 1975). After a long hiatus the mound

was reoccupied in the Medieval times (12th

-13th

centuries AD) (Gates, 1999a: 260-

261).

In the third millennium BC (EBA) a metal industry, represented by a room

that included deposition of bronze products, and kiln installations were recovered in

the site (Gates, 2007: 687; 2009: 354). Large and tall storage jars possibly from

storage rooms and Canaanite blades indicate that the mound already achieved its

harbor character in this period (Gates, 2005: 164-165; 2007: 686-687).

63

The mound was first surveyed by Seton-Williams (Seton-Williams, 1954: 161). 64

The size of other harbor sites on the Levantine coastline varies from 3 to 8 ha (Marcus, 2007: 147). 65

Kinet acted as a harbor town during its long history under the names: Zise or Izziya in LBA; Sissu

in Iron Age; Issos in Hellenistic Age; and Hisn at-Tinat in the Middle Ages when the site transported

trees down the Deli Çay according to later Medieval Arabic sources (Gates, 1999a: 260; 1999b: 303-

304; 2001b: 138; Beach and Luzzadder -Beach, 2008: 418).

57

In MBA (ca. 2000-1500 BC), the site was protected by a fortification wall

with a tower (Gates, 2007: 688-689). The period is characterized by a complex

“burnt building” of which only ten rooms were excavated, but the building was much

larger (Gates, 1999b: 306). The building functionally comprises mainly workshops

or service rooms that linked each other (Gates, 1999b: 306). Finds from the building

include large numbers of storage jars whose capacities varied from 50 to 80 liters,

and contained grain and olive oil; early Canaanite transport jars; and Cypriot

imported pottery from the destruction level of the building (ca. 1525 cal BC) (Gates,

1999b: 306; 2002: 60; 2006: 298; 2011a: 185-186).

The MBA building gives evidence for workshops in two rooms (Gates,

2001a: 204; 2005: 165). A hearth for smelting or resmelting activity, a metal ingot as

raw material reinforces the metal industry at Kinet (Gates, 2005: 165). In addition,

finds which are associated with metalworking such as copper slag, fragments of

crucibles, a copper ingot, and pounders from on LBA building show an active metal

industry (Gates, 2001a: 207; 2006: 299).

In LBA (15th

-13th

centuries BC), the mound expanded along the bay at the

foot of the mound, probably by a commercial structure or similar installation (Gates,

2006: 295). It indicates that maritime activity developed in this period. Vessels from

LBA building indicate that the place acted as a port facility since, they were

produced for transport and deposition such as storage jars which included various

foods and Canaanite jars (Gates, 1999b: 307; 2011a: 185). Some of the handles of

Canaanite jars carry record of a commercial affiliation (see below, Chapter 6).

58

5.3 A Transition Zone between Cilicia and the Amuq

5.3.1 Dağılbaz Höyük

Dağılbaz Höyük is situated between the foot of the Amanos Mountains and

the coastal plain of Iskenderun, ca. 5.5 km south of the sea (Lehmann et al., 2008:

172; Killebrew et al., 2009: 228). The site was discovered in 2006, during a survey

conducted by M.-H. Gates, A. Killebrew and G. Lehmann in the region of

Iskenderun Bay under the name of “The Mopsos Landscape Archaeology Project”

(Lehmann et al., 2008: 172-173; Killebrew, 2011: 39).

The occupation of the site was determined as the LBA to MIA (Lehmann et

al., 2008: 172). LBA materials include Hittite finds (see below, Chapter 6) as well as

Late Helladic IIIC (12th

century BC) pottery (Lehmann et al., 2008: 172-173;

Killebrew, 2011: 41). The geographical setting of the site is important because the

mound was surrounded by water on its three sides: on the western side by the Gevrek

stream and on the eastern and northern sides by the Belen river (Killebrew et al.,

2009: 228). It was also situated in a transition zone between Cilicia and the Amuq.

There is no evidence to disprove that the site would have had a river harbor

connecting an overland transit route between Cilicia and the Amuq regions.

5.4 The Amuq Valley and the Asi Delta Plain

5.4.1 Tell Atchana/Alalakh

Tell Atchana (ancient Alalakh) which is situated in the center of the Amuq

valley is today ca. 500 m east of the Asi river (Yener, 2008: 171; 2011: 75). The first

59

archaeological survey of Tell Atchana was made by R. J. Braidwood between 1932

and 1937 (Casana, 2009: 8). Major excavations were conducted by C. L. Woolley

between 1936-1939 and 1946-1949 (Woolley, 1955: 1-2). Since 2000, the excavation

of the mound has been conducted by K. A. Yener as part of an interdisciplinary

“Amuq Valley Regional Project” (Yener, 2005a: 99). The mound covers ca. 20 ha

and was the largest site in the Amuq valley during the MBA and LBA (Casana,

2009: 16).

Indeed, mountains enclosed three sides of the Amuq region and restricted

overland transports, but at the same time the Asi river provided an opening for

transport (Yener, 1998: 276; Casana, 2007:198). Geo-scientific investigations around

the mound point to the possibility of an old river channel or bed of the Asi running

between Tell Ta’yinat66

and Tell Atchana (Yener, 2005a: 105). In other words, the

river surrounded the mound on three sides (the south, east and north) in this

millennium (Casana, 2009: 10; Yener, 2011: 75). Yener (2005a: 105) notes a

possible river port and its facilities along the old river channel before its shifting

toward west. Therefore, Tell Atchana as an inland site could have engaged in a sea-

based exchange system via its navigable river, and could have acted as “transit

station” between the delta plain and inland sites of Amuq valley (Yener, 2005b: 198).

The material culture of the site shows that Tell Atchana benefitted from

influence from neighbouring inland regions (central Anatolia, north Syria, the

66

Tell Ta’yinat is situated ca. 700 m away from Tell Atchana (Yener, 2005a: 105). Tell Ta’yinat was

occupied during EBA. During MB and LBA, Tell Atchana was settled and Tell Ta’yinat was resettled

by inhabitants in Tell Atchana as continuation of Hittite dynasty throughout the Iron Age probably

because of shifting of the river (Casana and Wilkinson, 2005: 38 Yener, 2005a: 105, 111; 2005b: 200;

Casana, 2007: 203).

60

Levant) as well as overseas (Cyprus, the Aegean, possibly Cilicia67

), because of its

geopolitical importance. The city reflects a cosmopolitan character in its architectural

and artistic materials (Yener, 2005a: 113), as inland harbor and primary site of the

region during the 2nd

millennium BC.

Fragments of wall paintings in Minoan fresco technique were found in a

room of the MBA palace (“palace of Yarim Lim”) (Figure 29) (Woolley, 1955: 228-

232). Frescoes in this style were also discovered at Tel Kabri in Israel, dated to its

MBA palace (Niemeier and Niemeier, 1998: 71-78); in a massive building of Tell el-

Dab’a in the Nile delta, dated to ca. 1450 BC (the late Hyksos and the early 18th

dynasty) (Bietak, 1996: 76-79; Niemeier and Niemeier, 1998: 79); and in the MBA

palace of Tell el–Burak in Lebanon (Sader and Kamlah, 2010: 135-137). Many

scholars agreed that these frescoes were made by Aegean travelling artists or under

their influence in a gift giving framework between Minoan palaces and the Near

Eastern and Egyptian palaces with maritime relations (Niemeier and Niemeier, 1998:

93-96).

Bronze Age palaces include service areas which acted for storage, and

workshop areas as at Kinet Höyük (Bergoffen, 2005: 17, 19; Yener, 2005a:106, 110),

and Ugarit. Artifacts made of ivory from Alalakh’s palaces, and several unworked

elephant tusks (some 1.6 m long) from the service area of the MBA palace, were

found (Bergoffen, 2005: 17, 21; Yener, 2007: 153). These finds indicate the presence

of ivory workshops (Yener, 2007: 154) or that the palace was trading in raw ivory,

which was known from the Uluburun shipwreck (Yalçın et al., 2006: 638).

67

The transport between the Asi delta plain and the eastern part of Cilicia must have used sea routes

rather than an overland route over the Amanos (Boardman, 2002: 329).

61

Metal working equipment (such as molds and crucibles) and metal residues,

as well as several finished copper, lead, gold and silver products suggest a developed

metallurgy and metal workshops (Bergoffen, 2005: 21; Yener, 2005b: 199; Yener et

al., 2005: 47).

Tell Atchana, despite its being an inland site, also produced remarkable and

huge amounts of imported Late Cypriot pottery68

(Figure 30), as well as RLWMW69

,

and Mycenaean ceramics (see Bergoffen, 2005). These ceramic assemblages suggest

that Tell Atchana had a river port, perhaps off the east end of the mound and the Asi

must have been exploited for transport. These imported ceramics could have been

carried by river boats from Sabuniye, as will be detailed below.

In addition, Cypriot style pottery was also produced locally in workshops at

the site (Bergoffen, 2005: 44). The production was perhaps made to support local

demand as well as that of neighbouring sites, if Tell Atchana is considered a “transit

station” (Yener, 2005b: 198).

5.4.2 Sabuniye Höyük/Sabouniyeh

The mouth of the Asi acted as harbor, and thus many ancient harbor sites

were established in or around its estuary by inland centers for maritime activities.

However, the geomorphological changes (shifting river course and silting) led to

frequent relocation of the inland centers and harbor towns (Pamir, 2005: 76; Yener,

2005b: 193).

68

The Cypriot pottery in Tell Atchana was found mainly in service and official wings of the LBA

palace (“Niqme-pa palace”) mainly dated to the late 15th

and the early 14th

centuries BC (Bergoffen,

2005). The amounts of the pottery diminished after the mid-14th

century BC (Bergoffen, 2005: 14, 19,

23-24, 26). 69

RLWMW (arm-shaped vessels and spindle bottles) in Tell Atchana mainly came from LBA houses

and tombs (Bergoffen 2005; 31-34). Some of them were locally produced (Bergoffen, 2005: 46-48).

62

In the Hellenistic period, Seleucia Pieria70

, which is ca. 500 m inland from the

sea now, was established ca.10 km northwest of the mouth of the Asi (Pamir, 2005:

67-69). Seleucia Pieria had two harbors: an inner harbor and seaport during

Hellenistic and Roman times, related to Antioch (ca. 25 km inland) (Pamir and

Nishiyama, 2002: 311; Pamir, 2005: 74-76). In the Iron Age, Al Mina71

, which is ca.

1.8 km inland from the sea, was found on the north-western bank of the river (Pamir,

2006: 538). Al Mina which was related to Tell Ta’yinat acted as trading centers with

its warehouses between the 8th

and the 4th

centuries BC (Woolley, 1959: 156-158;

Pamir, 2005: 67, 72-73, 76). During the Bronze Age, the linkage between the delta

plain and the Amuq valley in a harbor and urban relationship was first introduced by

Sabuniye, which could have been the port town of Alalakh (Pamir, 2005: 76; Yener,

2005b: 198).

The mound of Sabuniye was first excavated in the same project as Al Mina

by C. L. Woolley in 1936 (Woolley, 1938). Between 1991 and 2002, the “Asi Delta

Survey” was conducted by H. Pamir within “The Amuq Valley Regional Projects”,

and continued as an interdisciplinary survey72

since 2002 (Pamir, 2005: 67).

The mound covers a small area (ca. 1.2 ha) on a high hill (Hisallı Tepe)

overlooking the northern bank of the Asi, at its confluence with the Mutayran river

(Pamir and Nishiyama, 2002: 304-305; Pamir, 2005: 71). The geopolitical location of

70

Seleuceia Pieria, a harbor city of the Seleucid Kingdom (300 BC) excavated by W. A. Campbell

and R. A. Stillwell (1937-1939) (Pamir, 2005: 67-68, 74). 71

Al Mina was excavated by Woolley in 1936 (Woolley 1938). He focused on the Aegean and Near

Eastern relations in the Iron Age, especially “Greek colonization” (Boardman, 2002: 318; Pamir and

Nishiyama, 2002: 294; Pamir, 2005: 67). 72

Within the scope of the survey 52 new sites were determined as addition to Sabuniye, Al Mina and

Seleuceia Pieria which were reexamined by the survey (Pamir, 2005: 68). Only two of them, Sabuniye

and Virşa Tepe/Hill, which is situated opposite Sabuniye on the top of a hill, were dated to MB/LBA

and Iron Age (Pamir, 2005: 70, 72).

63

Sabuniye overlooked the river gorge as well as the river road; it acted as a gateway

or an entrepot between the sea, and the valley (Pamir and Nishiyama, 2002: 305,

310, 312; Pamir, 2005: 67, 71). After arriving at Sabuniye from either direction,

loaded or unloaded boats could have accessed the sea via the mouth of the Asi

(Pamir, 2005: 69).

Finds of the MB/LBA levels at Sabuniye, support its possible role as port of

Alalakh. Middle and mainly Late Cypriot pottery, and Late Mycenaean sherds (LHIII

A-C 13th

-12th

centuries BC) were found at Sabuniye (Pamir and Nishiyama, 2002:

306-307, 310; Pamir, 2005: 72; Yener et al., 2002: 294). These ceramic assemblages

and their frequency (less than at Tell Atchana) support two ideas: firstly, Sabuniye as

“entrepot” or port city was associated with overseas; secondly, Sabuniye would have

transshipped goods to the interior (Tell Atchana) by river boats (Yener et al., 2002:

294; Pamir, 2006: 542). The huge amounts of breakable imported goods found at

Alalakh could not have otherwise been transported by overland routes.

5.5 The North Syrian Coast/The Jebleh Plain

5.5.1 Ugarit/Ras Shamra

The site of ancient Ugarit (ca. 26 to 28 ha) is situated on the Tell Ras Shamra

in northeastern Syria, 12 km. north of the city of Latakia (Wijngaarden, 2002: 37;

Calvet, 2007: 104). Archaeological studies at Ugarit and its surrounding area were

conducted by C. F. A. Schaeffer starting in 1929 and continued after the interruption

of World War II. Excavations were continued by H. de Contenson (1972-1973), J.

Margueron (1975-1979), by M. Yon (1978-1998) (Curtis, 1999: 6-9; Yon, 2006: 8),

64

and by others since then, recently V. Matoïan (2009- ).Wijngaarden (2002: 37) stated

that 1/6 of ancient Ugarit has been excavated. As a result, finds and interpretations

are derived from ca. 4 ha of Ugarit.

Ugarit defines harbor settlement patterns as an urban city for MBA and LBA.

First of all, the choice of the location of the site offered the main pattern for harbor

settlements that linked the sea and interior as a gateway. The site itself was enclosed

by two small streams: Nahr ed-Delbe which flows south of the site could have

connected with a sea harbor at Ras Ibn Hani (see below) while Nahr Chbayyeb/

Shbayyeb flows north of the site (Yon, 1992: 23; 2006: 12). The two streams

confluence into the Nahr al-Fidd/Fayd at the west of the site and connect with the sea

in a natural bay to the west named “Minet el-Beida73

” (Van Soldt, 1995: 1255; Yon,

2006: 12). The riverine landscape of Ugarit could supply it with conduits for

transport.

The city plan of the LBA Ugarit can be described from the west side (the sea

side) of the city. The city was entered through a fortified entry with a tower and a

postern gate (Yon, 2006: 27); but the fortified gate only provided an entrance for the

royal residences on the west and associated constructions toward the north of the

mound (Yon, 2006: 28, 35). Religious buildings (two temples) were located on the

acropolis (Yon, 2006: 28). The city center, houses and shops were on the south side

of the mound (Yon, 2006: 28). In addition, the south side had another entrance to

reach the center of the city by a bridge over the river (Yon, 2006: 89-90).

73

Ancient Mahadu (Astour, 1970: 118) ; the name of the Minet el-Beida, meaning “White Haven”,

is derived from the white cliffs at the bay (Van Soldt, 1995: 1255; Curtis, 1999: 6).

65

Artifacts uncovered from the LBA levels (ca.1350-1200) indicate movements

of both people and goods. Seals, seal impressions and tablets written in Ugaritic,

Hittite, Akkadian, Egyptian, Hurrian and Cypro-Minoan from royal and surrounding

residential areas reflect its interregional relations within the eastern Mediterranean,

as well as the economy in Ugarit (Curtis, 1999: 11; Yon, 2006: 8, 125, 127, 129).

Metal (bronze and gold) and stone statues, vessels and weapons; stone stelae; objects

of ivory; faience objects; clay figurines; and local and imported pottery (Yon, 2006:

131-172) indicate the relation with eastern Mediterranean regions (Egypt, Cyprus

and the Aegean) by sea, and demonstrate a cosmopolitan character for the city.

Excavations at the mound of Ugarit reveal evidence for workshops to

manufacture goods such as metalwork, olive oil and ivory products. Raw materials,

tools for production and manufacture discards indicate workshops and commercial

storage space in houses of the “Residential Quarter”, which includes private houses

whose owners were related to commercial activities; and the “City Center” which

includes ordinary houses of Ugaritic society (Yon, 2006: 64, 78, 82, 96). Equipment

for oil pressing in a house at the City Center and from a private house (the “House of

Alabaster Vessels”) documents oil manufacture at the site (Yon, 2006: 66, 82).

Bronze slag, tools and metal hoards, which were found in a house at the City Center,

indicate directly a metal workshop (Yon, 2006: 96). Hippopotamus and elephant

tusks74

, which were found as raw material and finished goods in tombs and buildings

in Ugaritic palace complex (Gates, 1992: 82; Yon, 2006: 43), may also indicate an

74

Hippopotamus tusk could have been found in Palestine and around the wetlands of the Syrian

coast, while elephant ivory in raw material originated in Egypt and India as well as in west Syria

(Caubet and Poplin, (1987: 292-293, 297, 300) as cited in Gates (1992: 78).

66

ivory workshop in Ugarit. Archaeological evidence reflects that Ugarit was a

production center as well as a transshipping center.

Imported potteries in the domestic sphere, from the city center, and their

distribution throughout the city indicate that the use of Cypriot and Mycenaean

pottery for daily activities was widespread among local people in Ugarit

(Wijngaarden, 2002: 43; C. Bell, 2005: 364-365). It is clear that most goods and

effects reached Ugarit through its harbor, whether these goods arrived directly from

their place of origin or elsewhere (Wijngaarden, 2002: 41; C. Bell, 2005: 368-369),

and whether these goods were imported or locally produced by copying different

traditions.

5.5.2 Minet el-Beidha

Minet el-Beidha is defined as a sea harbor site of Ugarit because of its

location in a natural bay (Van Soldt, 1995: 1255; Yon 2006: 8). The harbor site was

excavated by C. F. A. Schaeffer (1929-1935) and was dated to the LBA, ending ca.

1180 BC (Yon, 2006: 8; Sauvage 2007: 618). The natural bay led to establishing a

settlement on the east side of the bay (ca. one km from Ugarit) (Van Soldt, 1995:

1255).

The settlement includes houses, sanctuaries and warehouses or commercial

installations (Yon, 2006: 8). Finds from this site indicated that the maritime activity

of Ugarit could have been conducted through its port of Minet el-Beidha. Deposits of

murex shells from Minet el-Beidha indicate a purple dye industry and according to

Curtis (1999: 21) a waster of a vessel of Cypriot type shows that imitations could

have been produced in a pottery workshop in this same area.

67

Being cosmopolitan is a characteristic feature for a harbor settlement: Finds

from Minet el-Beidha support this pattern, like those from Ugarit and the Uluburun

shipwreck. Finds recorded from Minet el-Beidha include seals (Yon, 2006: 129); an

ivory duck-shaped cosmetic box with lid (Yon, 2006: 139), a figured ivory lid from

the Aegean (Gates, 1992); Mycenaean terra-cotta female figurines (Yon, 2006: 155);

a faience vessel in the shape of a female head (Yon, 2006: 157); gold pendants with

Egyptian influence (Yon, 2006: 167); and a large amount of Mycenaean, Cypriot and

Minoan pottery (Curtis, 1999: 21; Yon, 2006: 143,145; Sauvage, 2007: 619). They

parallel Ugarit’s interregional relations. Ugarit obtained such goods via Minet el-

Beidha. In addition, some of these finds came from tombs in houses whose residents

in Minet el-Beidha could have been cosmopolitan characters like the society in

Ugarit.

Although the size of Minet el-Beidha has not been determined, Saadé, (1995:

212-213) as cited in Wijngaarden (2002: 37) suggested that ca. 1.4 ha of Minet el-

Beidha was excavated and it would cover a much larger area. However, the harbor

site was small when it is compared with Ugarit, which was an urban center. It seems

that harbors could not be considered crowded urban centers; however, the movement

of people and of goods in Minet el-Beidha was underestimated in terms of

proportions and diversity when comparing with Ugarit. These derived from its

position as a harbor city.

68

5.5.3 Ras Ibn Hani75

The promontory site situated 4 km south-west of Ugarit can be defined as a

second harbor of Ugarit during the LBA (Curtis, 1999: 22; Marriner et al., 2012: 35-

36). Excavations in the site were conducted by A. Bounni and J. Lagarce (1975-

1980). Two palace areas which were recovered were closely related to Ugarit

(Bounni et al., (1998) as cited in Marriner et al., 2012: 36). Metal working was well

attested at this site: a stone mold for oxhide ingots is a unique find (Curtis, 1999: 23;

Matthӓus, 2006: 342). LBA Mycenaean ceramics and other foreign goods, which

were originated in Cyprus, Egypt and the Aegean, were also found (Bounni et al.,

(1998) as cited in Marriner et al., (2012: 47); Wijngaarden, 2002: 112).

More recently, palaeogeographical researches were carried out as part of the

Ugarit projects to determine the location of Ras Ibn Hani’s ancient harbors (see

Marriner et al., 2012). The studies determined that the site was on a tombolo, an

island connected with the mainland (or territory of Ugarit), during the LBA

(Marriner et al., 2012: 46). It offered safe anchorage facilities; it is therefore possible

that Ras Ibn Hani acted as an outer sea harbor (Marriner et al., 2012: 47-48) like

Sidon’s outer harbor (Carayon et al., 2011/12: 447, 449).

The excavations at Ugarit reveal the relationship between Ugarit, Minet el-

Beidha and Ras Ibn Hani (Figure 31). The suggestion of another entrance for the city

on the south of the site, apart from the fortified western gate, reinforced the

relationship between them (Marriner et al., 2012: 13, fig. 10-14). A pier made of

ashlar blocks was found on the bank of the south, Nahr ed-Delbe, river (Yon, 2006:

75

Ancient names might be “Appu, Biruti, or Reshu?” (Yon, 2006: 12). The site was settled after the

destruction of Ugarit (Yon, 2006: 12).

69

90). It is likely that these ashlar blocks were spanned with moveable wooden beams

and the upper structure of the pier was made of planks (Yon, 2006: 90). The system

could have been used both as a dam to supply water during dry summers and a

bridge to cross the river (Yon, 2006: 90). Thus, goods could have been transported

by the bridge on the river from its harbors to the city of Ugarit. Although the

excavator, Yon (1992: 25-26) did not suggest river transport by boat, it is not

technologically impossible that river boats then shipped heavy goods, such as large

amounts of pottery containers, when there was enough water in the river.

Ugarit and its ports give an idea about how maritime communities functioned

in the 2nd

millennium BC. Large amounts of pottery indicated two main aspects of a

harbor settlement: Transport and deposition. Thanks to its seaports, Ugarit was

engaged in an exchange system extending over a wide geographical network. Its sea

harbors were used for transshipping goods (Linder, 1981: 33), since its location was

on the destination of the exchange routes by boat along the coasts of the eastern

Mediterranean: Egypt, the Levantine coast, Cyprus, Cilicia, Crete and the Aegean

(Yon, 2006: 14). The location and its harbor provided the site with supplies of raw

material for sea-related industry and the facilities to send its products by boats.

5.5.4 Tell Tweini/Gibala

Tell Tweini is situated on the Syrian coast at the junction of two rivers, today

1.7 km from the sea, around 30 km south of Latakia and 40 km south of Ras Shamra

(Bretschneider et al., 2005: 215; 2010: 73). Archaeological research in Tell Tweini

has been conducted by M. Al-Maqdissi, K. Van Lerberghe, M. Badawi and J.

Bretschneider since 1999 (Bretschneider and Lerberghe, 2008a: 1). The mound

70

covers an area of 3.6 ha and is analogous to other Levantine harbor sites like Kinet

Höyük (Bretschneider et al., 2005: 216-217). Tell Tweini is approximately pear-

shaped: the west end of the mound gets narrow pointing toward the sea76

(Bretschneider et al., 2008: 34).

Tell Tweini is surrounded by two rivers: the larger Rumailiah flows just

north of the mound while the smaller Al-Fawar flowed just south and just east of the

mound (Al-Maqdissi et al., 2007: 4). It is known that the Rumailiah which reaches

the sea from a small bay at the west of the mound was navigable until the early 20th

century AD (Al-Maqdissi et al., 2007: 5; Bretschneider and Lerberghe 2008a: 1).

According to geomorphological research77

and palynological analyses, a sea

incursion occurred in the Bronze Age (Al-Maqdissi et al., 2007: 6). It could have

provided Tell Tweini with direct contact to the Mediterranean by a sea harbor which

was the small bay (Bretschneider et al., 2008: 33; Bretschneider and Lerberghe,

2008a: 1). An estuary harbor as inner/inland harbor connected between the sea and

the mound directly by boat (Al-Maqdissi et al., 2007: 6). There could be sea or river

boats on the larger river to transport goods and people between the coast and the

mound and even to the interior in the Bronze Age. It is obvious that Tell Tweini had

both sea and river port in the Bronze Age via its geographical setting (Al-Maqdissi et

al., 2007: 6).

In LBA, Tell Tweini could be defined as a seaport or a harbor town that was

part of the Ugaritic kingdom (Figure 32) (Bretschneider and Lerberghe, 2008b: 31).

LBA finds include seals and seal impressions; Canaanite storage jars; Cypriot and

76

For similar case at Kinet Höyük, see Gates, 2003a: 290. 77

It was conducted on around the mound by Paulissen during the 2003-2004 seasons (Al-Maqdissi et

al., 2007: 5).

71

Mycenaean ceramics; and a jar handle with a Cypro-Minoan sign, like an Aegean jar

from a tomb of Ugarit (Bretschneider et al., 2005: 226; 2008: 35; Bretschneider and

Lerberghe, 2008b: 32-33). A seal impression also gives evidence for maritime

activity (mentioned in the section 3.2.3 of Chapter 3).

Cypriot and Mycenaean ceramics in Tell Tweini are types observed

throughout the territory of the Ugaritic kingdom and its surroundings: at Ras Shamra

proper, Ras Ibn Hani, Tell Daruk, Tell Sukas78

, Tell Kazel and Tell Siyannu

(Bretschneider et al., 2008: 35-36). These import ceramics could have contained

trade goods and indicate the overseas exchange between the Aegean, Cyprus and the

Levant (Bretschneider et al., 2008: 37). In addition, a similar weight system was used

both in Ugarit and Tell Tweini; it demonstrates the affiliation of Tell Tweini in the

Ugaritic kingdom in terms of commercial activity (Bretschneider et al., 2008: 36, 40,

fig.III.43).

Excavations at the mound reveal less evidence for workshops. However, a ce-

ramic burnisher could signify a workshop to produce local ceramics (Vansteenhuyse,

2008: 108). It is possible that some ceramics, especially storage vessels, could have

been produced locally under foreign influences like Cyprus (Vansteenhuyse, 2008:

110). According to faunal analyses, mollusks were found in almost all periods and

may have been used for the maritime industry; waste flakes of hippo-ivory could

point to working with ivory (Linseele, 2008: 145). Imported fish remains such as

Nile perch from Egypt and Clarias, which belongs to the catfish family, could be

78

From the MBA, Tell Sukas could be defined as a sea harbor by two natural bays. Tell Daruk is

situated at the estuary of Nahr Sinn which acted as river harbor (Oldenburg and Rohweder, (1981) as

cited in Marcus (2007: 170).

72

associated with the Asi valley (Linseele, 2008: 145), representing other interregional

relations.

Archaeological materials and geographical settings were considered in this

chapter. Cilicia, the Amuq and northern Levantine coast reflect similar or even the

same patterns for harbor settlements, especially during the mid-second millennium

BC.

73

CHAPTER 6

REGIONAL HARBORS UNDER HITTITE CONTROL

In this part, the history of the second millennium BC will be outlined to

describe the political environment, and particularly to underline the role of the harbor

settlements in the political configuration. Then, in order to understand the Hittite

impact on the harbor settlements in Cilicia and the Amuq, available information from

surveys79

and excavations will be discussed.

In the later part of the MBA, the Levantine coast and its interior consisted of

Canaanite city-states or small autonomous kingdoms (Genz, 2006; Marcus, 2007:

164-170). These cities and their harbors80

established maritime relations with Crete

and Cyprus (Bretschneider and Lerberghe, 2008b: 20-21). Their commercial

activities extended to the Canaanite settlements in the Nile Delta such as Tell el-

Dab’a (Avaris), which became a regional capital under the Hyksos dynasties of the

same period (Bietak, 1996: 5, 9, 14, 20; Tubb, 1998:56, 59).

79

Physical environment (modern occupations, grass and trees, alluviation) limited the visibility of

Bronze Ages settlements however, surveys shed light on settlement patterns: For information on

Cilicia see: Seton-Williams, 1954; French, 1965; Özgen and Gates, 1993; Salmeri and D’Agata, 2003;

Lehmann et al., 2008; Killebrew et al., 2009; Killebrew, 2011, for the Amuq; Casana and Wilkinson,

2005 and for the Asi delta; Pamir, 2005. 80

The first harbor towns of the Levant to EBA period like Byblos (see Marcus, 2002: 409;

Bretschneider and Lerberghe, 2008b:17).

74

At this time, after the period of Assyrian Trade Colonies, Hattusili I (ca.1650-

1620) established the Hittite Kingdom based in Boğazköy (Hattusa) in central

Anatolia (Latacz and Starke, 2006: 190). During the reigns of Hattusili I and Mursili

I (ca.1620-1590), the Hittites expanded from the Cilician Plain (Kizzuwatna) toward

north Syria and destroyed Alalakh (Bryce, 2005: 70-80; 97-100; Latacz and Starke,

2006: 191). Cilicia and the Amuq had crucial strategic importance for the Hittite

economy and military force (Bryce, 2005: 81-82, 94). Hittite kings therefore drew up

treaties with the kings of the independent kingdom Kizzuwatna from the 15th

century

(LB I) reign of Telipinu onwards (Bryce, 2005: 104, 113-116).

After the MB developmental phase of maritime exchange, the Levant saw a

period of great affluence in the following centuries (LB, ca. 1500-1180), and was

caught between rival ambitions of Egypt and Hittite Anatolia (Bryce, 2005: 167-

168). By the mid-14th

century BC, the Hittite kingdom began to grow as empire.

Mitanni (north Syria) was seized and its vassals transferred to the Hittites (Bryce,

2005: 156, 177). Kizzuwatna, Mukish (the Amuq) (Bryce, 2005: 161, 177, 180;

Casana, 2009: 11) and Ugarit, which was formerly in the Egyptian domain, came

under Hittite control as vassals (ca. 1332-1260) (Bryce, 2005: 165-166; Yon, 2006:

21).

By the thirteenth century BC, the Hittite and Egyptian armies battled at

Qadesh in mid-Syria (ca. 1274) (Bryce, 2005: 229-230, 240; Peker and De Vos,

2010: 100, 104), possibly to gain control of maritime power in northern Syria. In the

meanwhile, king Muwattalli II had moved the capital to the town of Tarhuntassa,

close to or in Rough Cilicia (Yakar, 2000: 371; Bryce, 2005; 230). His successor

Urhi-Tesup (Mursili III) (ca.1272-1267) moved the capital back to Boğazköy and his

75

uncle, Hattusili III (ca.1267-1237) gave Tarhuntassa to Kurunta (Ulmi-Tesub) as a

capital city of a new “appanage” kingdom81

, whose heart could be the Calycadnus

(Göksu) valley (Baker et al., 1995: 145-146). After the war a peace treaty was signed

and the northern Levant remained Hittite (Peker and De Vos, 2010: 100,105).

In the end of the LBA (ca. 1200/1190 BC), eastern Mediterranean empires

and city-states collapsed because of so-called “Sea Peoples” (Bryce, 2005: 333;

Genz, 2006: 377) and other natural reasons (see Kaniewski et al., 2010).

In short, it seems that fragmented city-states of the MBA in the Levant were

tied to strong states which began to coalesce into empires in the LBA. The history of

the second millennium was also configured by the Levantine harbors which led to

friendly or hostile relations between great powers. In the later stage of the LBA, a

peaceful atmosphere established by diplomatic channels provided political stability

until the collapse of the system.

Hittite influence already began to reflect on the material culture of the

Cilician harbor settlements starting in the 16th

/15th

century BC. However, the impact

increased between the 14th

and the 12th

century BC, when the Hittite state annexed

western and eastern Cilicia and the Amuq plain, not only for its land-based activity,

but also to participate in sea-based activity82

until the end of the LBA (12th

century

BC).

81

The border of the kingdom, which was defined by a treaty, included the Göksu (Calycadnus) valley,

Rough Cilicia (Otten, (1988) as cited in Yakar (2000: 371). Ura whose location was mentioned as

“western Cilicia” in the text of Ugarit (Singer, 1999: 660), could have been situated in the kingdom in

the 13th

century BC. There are also texts about maritime interaction between Tarhuntašša and Ugarit

(Singer, 1999: 660-661). 82

Textual sources from Ugarit refer the maritime activity in terms of trade and military function (Vita,

1999: 457-458, 497-498).

76

In these regions where rivers are found throughout their landscape,

settlements were distributed near or on the main rivers and their tributaries (Map 2,

3, 4) (Seton-Williams, 1954: 132, fig.3, 134, fig. 4, 147-174; French, 1965: 179, fig.

2). This preference can be considered a widespread pattern for the MBA and LBA

settlements. The choice of river landscape not only provided natural resources for

livelihood, but also a network of water ways.

After the Hittite annexation in Cilicia, beside the older, multi-period

settlements, new sites were established and the density of settlements increased

toward the northeastern and eastern interiors of the plain (Seton-Williams, 1954;

Yakar, 2001: 42-43). A number of reasons lie behind this density. It was explained as

a juxtaposition of land routes (east to west)83

by Seton-Williams (1954: 127-128) and

as Hittite planned settlement policy by Yakar (2001: 41, 43), for instance to settle the

nomadic and semi-nomadic population. As a further explanation, harbor settlements

and river transport could also be factors, since the density increased along the middle

course of the Ceyhan river and its tributaries (Seton-Williams, 1954: 156,164,169,

173). New smaller sites and harbors could have been established toward the coast

like Nergis (Seton-Williams, 1954: 165-166). Small settlements and harbors are,

however, hidden because of alluviation, such that the only settlements visible today

are on high mounds, like Domuz Tepe near Yumurtalık (Taffet, 2001: 131-132;

Yakar, 2001: 42).

83

Between the Bahçe pass, which linked the north (central Anatolia and beyond), south (Cilician

coastline and the sea) and southeast (north Syria and Mesopotamia), and the Cilician Gates (Seton-

Williams 1954: 123, 127-128).

77

According to archaeological evidence, Hittite impact began to affect material

culture in Cilicia before the 14th

century annexation84

. After the annexation, pottery

was manufactured in a standard shape and with the same technique as copying the

dominant Hittite culture for local consumption (Gates, 2001b: 139), which suggests

that the economy in Cilicia was transformed into a centralized economy by Hittite

administrative entity (Gates, 2001b; 2011b: 400). The system must have affected

commercial centers and harbor settlements in these regions. The presence of pottery

with potmarks in Cilician harbor settlements85

not only proves the influence from the

plateau but also shows that the Göksu valley (Tarhuntassa) took place in the same

sphere of influence with the Cilician plain (Kizzuwatna) (Postgate, 2007a: 6; 2007d:

36).

Harbor settlements would have been modified in accord with Hittite tradition

(Yakar, 2000: 365,367). The transformation can be inferred from material culture

and architecture in harbor settlements.

Tarsus can be identified as the capital city of Kizzuwatna which was formerly

independent in the end of the sixteenth century BC prior to Mitannian influence

(Goldman, 1956: 349; Bryce, 2005: 156, 177). A bulla with a personal name of the

Kizzuwatna king86

is an indicator of the administrative character of the city (early in

the LBA) (Figure 33). After the Hittite annexation, Tarsus (Tarsa) maintained its

84

The effect in Kinet did not appear suddenly in the 14th

century when Cilicia came under Hittite

domination; it began from the 16th

century BC (early LBA), when Cilician territory may have acted as

departure point for Hittite military to Syria (Gates, 2006: 308). 85

The homogenous pottery of 13th

c. BC which was distributed throughout central and southeastern

Anatolia is named “drab ware”: bowls were produced in monochrome and their surface was notched

with potmarks before firing (Gates, 1999b: 307; 2001b: 138-139). The ware found at Kilise Tepe

(Postgate, 2007a: 6; 2007d: 36; 2007e: 142), Soli Höyük (Yağcı, 2007: 179), Yumuktepe (Garstang,

1953: 242; Jean, 2006: 322), Tarsus (Postgate, 2007e: 142) and Kinet Höyük (Gates, 1999b: 307). 86

Hittite king Telipinu (ca. 1525-1500) signed a treaty with the king of Kizzuwatna, Isputahsu, whose

Hieroglyphic bulla with seal impression was found below the Hittite temple at Tarsus, (Goldman,

1956: 46, 63; Goetze, 1936: 212-214. Goldman (1956: 63-64) dated it to the early LBA.

78

importance and was transformed into a Hittite center. One building was recognized

as a “Hittite temple” by its first excavator (Goldman, 1956: 49, 56). It represents well

the Hittite temple tradition with its large dimension and cyclopean masonry

(Goldman, 1956: 49). Numerous bullae and Hittite seals suggest the official character

of more buildings (the “East House”) for Hittite administration (Goldman, 1956: 56

Yakar, 2001: 40).

Kilise Tepe could act properly as a riverine town as well as buffer zone or

“fort” (Gates, 2011b: 404). From the main excavated building (the “Stele Building”)

of the LBA mound, large storage vessels, which included remnants of grain and

olives, from at least three rooms show they could be used as storerooms (Symington,

2001: 168). A room was also defined as administrative, since a stele and Hittite seals

were found at the room (Symington, 2001: 168). Hittite seals of the 13th

century BC

were also found throughout the LBA levels at the mound, suggesting that

commercial activity at the site was organized from this building, perhaps by

overseers, who could be associated with Ura, on behalf of the Hittite government

(Singer, 1999: 718; Symington, 2001: 173-174). Archaeological finds reinforce the

possibility that Kilise Tepe could be an administrative and a military site of the

Hittite Empire on the westernmost border of Cilicia in the land of Tarhuntassa (Baker

et al., 1995: 143-144). Apart from ceramics, other finds signified relations with north

Syria, which was under Hittite influence in this period, and the Hittite mainland. An

exceptional Hittite figurine triad made of metal was found at Kilise Tepe and Ugarit,

and a parallel configuration87

was recorded at Boğazköy from a religious context

(Symington, 2001: 172). Hittite seals also demonstrated their close relationship,

87

An ivory plaque representing three figures associated with Hittite cult (Symington, 2001: 172).

79

including one seal in ivory (Figure 34), a material also familiar from Boğazköy

(Collon et al., 2010: 174). However, the seal was also associated with an overseas

connection, since the seal is comparable with a Cypriot gold example in terms of

craftsmanship and style88

(Collon et al., 2010: 174). According to Collon these ivory

seals both from Boğazköy and Kilise Tepe were made in the same workshop, which

would have been located close to or at Kilise Tepe (Collon et al., 2010: 174). It

would act a center to organize distribution. Kilise Tepe would have a similar role

with other harbor towns in Hittite territory in terms of organization of cargo transport

or transshipment.

The material culture of Soli Höyük showed an effective Hittite influence from

the 16th

/15th

century BC. The mound was enclosed by a Hittite type fortification

system with casemates, which could be used as storerooms, as known from Yumuk-

tepe as well as Boğazköy (Yağcı, 2006a: 36; Yağcı and Kaya, 2009: 467).

Hieroglyph seals and bullae with Hittite hieroglyphs, one of which stamped a jar

handle with the personal name Targasna (14th

century BC) (Figure 35) (Yağcı, 2001:

163; 2006b: 59-60; 2008: 151-152) emphasize the presence of Hittite administration

in the port city.

Yumuktepe became a fortified settlement characterized by a casemate system

(Figure 36) (Garstang, 1953: Jean, 2006: 320-321), like Boğazköy as well as Soli

Höyük (Yağcı, 2006a: 36). The need for a well-protected city could indicate that both

Yumuktepe and Soli stood as frontier settlements in the Hittite Empire (Jean, 2006:

321).

88

Domed seal incised on surface; a floral theme encircling the hieroglyphic characters was recognized

on the Cypriot example (Collon et al., 2010: 174).

80

In Sirkeli Höyük, two buildings dated to LBA have been uncovered. One was

identified as a “Stone House”, associated with a religious function and the rock relief

which depicts the Hittite king Muwatalli II situated on the eastern side of the mound;

and another relief was placed next to it (Ahrens et al., 2010: 58). A second building

of this period which was possibly connected with a fortification wall gives further

evidence of the Hittite influence on the site, together with the Hittite pottery found in

a room (Ahrens et al., 2010: 59).

Kinet Höyük records a commercial affiliation via some of handles of

Canaanite jars: two of them marked with Hittite official seals (Figure 37); one of

them also notched with a potmark (Gates, 2008: 288). Likewise, Dağılbaz near

İskenderun, which was established in the border zone between the Amuq (Mukish)

and Cilicia (Kizzuwatna) as a linkage (Gates, 2011b: 402), illustrates a similar

affiliation with the handle of a storage vessel stamped with a Luwian hieroglyphic

seal (Lehmann et al., 2008: 172; Killebrew, 2011: 41).

Only two sites can be seen as harbor settlements in the Amuq plain89

: Alalakh

with its harbor Sabuniye. Alalakh came under Hittite domination as a vassal of the

kingdom of Ugarit (ca. 1350 BC), until the end of the Hittite Empire (Bergoffen,

2005: 57-67; Yener, 2005a: 102-103). Texts written in Hurrian and Akkadian, seal

inscriptions and bullae with Luwian, Hurrian and Hittite hieroglyphics and the royal

residences of Tell Atchana shed light on its administrative and commercial character,

89

The LB Amuq plain was densely settled with many towns according to written sources (Casana,

2009: 19); however, actual large sites whose main occupation belongs to the millennium are very few

(Tell Atchana, one other small settlement Tell Bahlilah) (Wilkinson and Casana, 2005: 37-38; Casana,

2009: 12). Casana underlines that only large Bronze Age settlements maintained their visibility from

sedimentation (Casana, 2009: 24).

81

when Alalakh acted as the capital city for the kingdom of Mukish90

(Yener, 2005a:

99, 101; Yener et al., 2005: 47). The general architectural layout of Tell Atchana

illustrates an urban character like Ugarit. The city began to resemble a Hittite

“military fort” after the Hittite annexation (Bergoffen, 2005: 27, 30-31; Yener,

2005a: 102, 110; 2005b: 199). The west of the Amuq (the Asi Delta Plain) was

underpopulated (two sites on the hills at the river bank) because of marshy

environment (Pamir, 2005: 72). A Hittite style seal from a LB level at Sabuniye

indicates that the administration of the harbor town may have been tied to the Hittite

Empire with Tell Atchana91

(Yener, 2005b: 199).

In north Syria, the LB archives from Ugarit mention a harbor town of Gibala

together with other Ugaritic harbor sites92

. It is likely that the ancient city of Gibala

can be identified with Tell Tweini as a Ugaritic harbor on the southernmost limit of

the kingdom of Ugarit in the 14th

century BC (Bretschneider and Lerberghe, 2008b:

11, 32). A seal with a Hittite-Luwian hieroglyphic inscription also reinforced the

relationship (Figure 38), since Ugarit in the LBA was a vassal state of the Hittite

Empire between the 14th

and the 12th

century BC (Yon, 2006: 20-22; Bretschneider

et al., 2008: 37; Bretschneider and Lerberghe, 2008b: 33). At the same time, Ugarit

and Kilise Tepe may have held similar roles within the Hittite Empire to organize

exchanges of goods on behalf of Hittite administration.

90

Mukish is the ancient name of the Amuq and the Asi Delta Plain during the Bronze Age (Casana,

2009: 8, 18). Before the Hittite annexation, between the 18th

and the 16th

centuries BC, Alalakh was a

vassal state in the kingdom of Yamhad which occupied Aleppo as center (Casana, 2009: 10); Between

the 15th

and early 14th

century BC the kingdom of Mitanni ruled the city (Bergoffen, 2005: 57-67, 68,

fig. 8; Yener, 2005a:102-103). 91

Texts from Ugarit state that grain for Hittite needs was loaded from the harbor of Mukish (at the

estuary of the Asi) to Ura in one or several shipments (Singer, 1999: 716). 92

Some of them are identified by Astour such as Su-uk-si with Tell Sukas, Atlg/A-tal-li-ig with Qal’at

er-Rus/ Qalat Er-Rouss and Gb’l /Gi-ba-la with modern Jebeleh (Astour, 1970: 115).

82

More generally, large and small inland settlements in Cilicia and the Amuq93

are defined as nucleated settlements (Wilkinson and Casana, 2005: 38-39; Gates,

2011b: 400). These settlements depended not only on agricultural activity. They also

could participate in river transport with their river harbors in a linear distribution

along rivers. Indirect evidence of the fact that they depended on their rivers is given

by sites such as Alalakh, which was abandoned due to a changing river course

(explained in the section of 5.4.1 of Chapter 5; Yener, 2005b: 193, 199-200).

Likewise, urbanization developed toward the sea coast in Tell Tweini and Kinet

Höyük, since the estuary was silted and only the small bay could still be used as

harbor in the LIA (Gates, 1999b: 304; 2006: 295; Al-Maqdissi et al., 2007: 7;

Bretschneider and Hameeuw, 2008: 69).

Estimating the population in harbor settlements can be speculative, since

harbors are places where people circulate seasonally. However, it can be suggested

that harbor settlements in Cilicia and the Amuq were crowded, averaging 100-250

individuals per hectare94

. Although the sizes of most sites are not known, it can be

said that harbor settlements involved small and large urbanized mounds95

such as

Alalakh (20 ha). Their harbors were small mounds such as Sabuniye (1.5 ha).

Transshipping harbor towns were medium-sized mounds such as Kinet (3.3 ha), and

the Levantine port town such as Tell Tweini (3.6 ha). The differences in size of the

mounds could be derived from their specialized character (Gates, 2011b: 404) after

the Hittite annexation.

93

It seems that they had separate cultures in this millennium; for example Tell Atchana inclined to

Syria compared to Cilicia (Gates, 2011b: 402). 94

Broshi and Gophna, (1986) Gophna and Portugali, (1988) Falconer, (1994: 312) Greenberg (2002)

as cited in Marcus (2007: 147). 95

Ugarit fits for measure as the largest harbor settlement of the millennium (between ca. 26 and 28

ha) (Gates, 2011c: 389).

83

To sum up, the Hittite state annexed Cilicia and Amuq in order to participate

directly in maritime activities. Harbor settlements were transformed in Hittite

tradition and were affiliated economically to Hittite administration. New river harbor

settlements could have been established in Cilicia. The maritime activity in Cilicia

and the Amuq might have increased under Hittite control as well (Yakar, 2000: 365)

according to ceramics which were associated with overseas centers (extensively

discussed in Chapter 5).

84

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

In this thesis I examined the settlement patterns of 2nd

millennium BC harbors

in order to try to evaluate a number of issues concerning the harbors and their

settlements in Cilicia and the Amuq, such as their physical setting, their functions

and their locations. In the Middle and Late Bronze Age, harbor settlements depended

on the river landscape in Cilicia and west of the Amuq, in agreement with the

Levantine harbor model, which was starting point of this thesis:

Many trade centers along the Levantine coast were located some distance

inland, having a separate quarter or a “Daughter” on the shore as their

harbour…In many cases there is a river course connecting the two centers and

in some it was probable navigable, at least for small crafts (Raban, 1991:

134).

Raban’s proposal is also taken up by Blue (1997) and Taffet (2001) in order

to identify where harbors in Cilicia were located. I applied the model to the Cilician

and Amuqian plains in this thesis.

In the previous chapters I tried to investigate theoretically these issues from

comparative perspectives and to apply the model to these regions. First of all, I

considered geomorphological changes to illustrate the river landscape of the second

85

millennium BC (= the mid-Holocene era). I proceeded to investigate how harbor

settlements can be inferred from archaeological contexts by recognizing specific

archaeological evidence from the Levantine harbor sites. After a chapter on river

transport, which was essential for the thesis since rivers and streams linked harbor

settlements with estuarine harbors, eventually the sea and the interior, I continued by

examining sites in Cilicia and the Amuq from the perspective of harbor settlements. I

then tried to assess the Hittite impact on harbor settlements after the annexation of

these regions in the mid-second millennium BC. Finally, I tried to combine the

topographical conditions with information from archaeological surveys on maps, to

describe settlement distribution near or around ancient river courses that connect to

ancient coastlines. All in all, the following conclusions can be drawn.

Rivers are the crucial components of harbor settlements and harbors both for

the transport of goods inland, and because river outlets provide well-protected

estuarine harbors for river boats sailing up from the seacoast and back.

It is likely that the settlement pattern of the second millennium BC in Cilicia

and the Amuq can be defined as riverside harbor settlements. Inhabitants in these

regions could have established harbors at or near estuaries which offered appropriate

physical conditions for lifting boats and docking facilities with or without any

modifications. Their settlements were often established behind the coastline and

somewhat inland on the same riverbank, a location that was more stable for long-

running habitations.

These sites can be defined as inland river harbors. Their locations allowed

them to oversee the river-sea routes as well. Estuarine and coastal ports then formed

partnerships with river harbors that were inland. Rivers and streams provided their

86

linkage: examples are Minet el-Beidha and Ugarit; Çingen Tepe, Ura? and Kilise

Tepe; Ura? and Soli; Sabuniye and Alalakh. There must be other, undiscovered

harbors at or around the mouth of rivers. However, the current rivers did not flow

along their present courses. The Göksu river, for instance, flowed into the sea

somewhere north of its present course. The ancient riverbed can help in suggesting

the likely location of an estuarine harbor like Ura.

The topographical conditions of the 2nd

millennium BC in Cilicia and the

Amuq invite the following inferences about river transport. On the one hand, delta

formations had just begun, and rivers and streams still dominated the lowlands.

Therefore, to go from one place to another across the coastal interior was almost

impossible without passing rivers and wetlands. To the north, the coastal lowlands

were surrounded by mountain ranges which blocked overland passage. At the same

time, the speed of geomorphological changes was not fast enough to obstruct the

exploitation of rivers and their estuaries because of increasing shallowness of water

or silting. Therefore, navigable rivers and their estuaries were suitable for docking

facilities and transport.

Under these natural and topographic circumstances, I believe theoretically,

river harbors facilitated transport and allowed heavy and breakable goods to be

shipped more easily by boat in these regions. There is no archaeological evidence for

river boats in Cilicia and the Amuq; however, it is plausible that river transport was

widespread given the river landscape, and that rivers in these regions maintained

their navigability until the recent past. Likewise in antiquity, small river boats, which

provide stability for loads, would have transported goods and people between river

harbors in these regions even if in shallow water or to go upstream, where boats were

87

towed or hauled by animal and man power. When I looked at various examples from

different regions, river transport not only depended on waterways but also on inland

routes due to the limitations of river transport. Where rivers divided, at waterfalls or

over stretches of desert like in Egypt, land roads were used and people carried their

boats in pieces.

River transport can be demonstrated archaeologically by finds; ceramics from

overseas can be good archaeological evidence for inland river harbor settlements and

river transport. Cypriot ceramics, which are specific components in Kilise Tepe,

Sirkeli and Alalakh, reached them with river boats, since these centers were inland.

Alalakh, for instance, displayed huge amounts of imported Late Cypriot pottery,

some of which are very large vessels. It is likely that these ceramics, as breakable

commercial goods, could be carried by river boats from their estuarine harbors to the

sites. These ceramics together with other finds, especially, from the LBA levels of

the sites themselves can also be presented as archaeological evidence for their

function as harbors.

In this thesis, I try to specify the identifying components for harbor

settlements during this period. They answer questions about how harbor settlements

can be inferred from an archaeological context and how the harbors were furnished:

for example, certain types of ceramics, which stem from Cyprus and Syria, were

used as commercial containers for maritime transport in boats, and as storage jars in

ports’ warehouses. Somes type of ceramics could be designed as containers for river

transport in boats and in the warehouses. Unfortunately, there is no study as yet on

ceramics for river transport.

88

Harbor settlements were also responsible for various types of ceramic

production as well as ceramic importation in the overseas exchange network. The

original intent of a ceramic type was changed in different regions where ports led to

acculturation, one characteristic feature for harbor settlements. Other sources like

shipwrecks, some raw and manufactured materials, boat depictions, anchors and shell

are further components of harbor settlements. Their presence required the use of

harbors and boats.

Harbor settlements presented urban layouts like non-harbor sites, whether

they covered a large surface area or not. But they included additional specialized

buildings such as warehouses and shipsheds. Buildings were built according to these

particular needs. Goods to be loaded or unloaded were stored in the warehouses for

at least a short term. In other words, the warehouses were the place for goods which

were merchandized. Another specific structure is the shipshed. These two

constructions were found at some sea-side harbors. It is likely that heavy silting

buried similar specialized buildings as yet undiscovered at estuarine harbors; or these

harbors transshipped goods instead of storing merchandise in public warehouses.

The role of the river harbors could have been primarily transshipping and re-

distributing the goods as “gateways” on a regional scale to the interior or as an outlet

between the sea and land to participate in maritime activities (Gates, 1999a: 260;

1999b: 309; Horden and Purcell, 2000: 392-393, 395). They also acted as transit

stops on a shipping route such as harbors in Cilicia96

(Gates, 1999b: 308-309).

Henceforth, harbor settlements configured political environment.

96

Boats often followed a coastal route (or navigation) from Egypt to the Levant to Amuq to Cilicia

and vice versa. The route is defined as cabotage or “touching” at harbor settlements which used

89

The Hittite state annexed western and eastern Cilicia and the Amuq in the

mid-second millennium BC. Hittites would have benefited from the knowledge of

the local inhabitants about water-borne activities. Estuarine harbors could connect

them with the outside or overseas and thus they obtained indispensable goods such as

grain through harbors in Kizzuwatna and Mukish. Archaeological evidence from

harbor settlements suggested that Hittites transformed harbor settlements into

administrative and fortified outposts and tied them to an economical affiliation with

central Anatolia. It is possible that Hittite overseers controlled maritime activities

from harbor settlements like Kilise Tepe, Tarsus, Sirkeli, Kinet and Alalakh. The

density of settlements in Cilicia increased during the LBA along the middle course of

the Ceyhan river and its tributaries in a linear distribution. It can be inferred that sites

in the middle of the course also transferred goods to the hinterland by river.

It is also clear that Bronze Age harbor settlement patterns changed toward the

end of LBA into the early Iron Age, since rapid alluviation led to “abandonment of

estuarine harbors and settlements and relocation to more viable coastal sites away

from silted-up fluvial outlets” (Marriner et al., 2012: 47). The situation then required

artificial harbor works in natural bays: the old estuarine harbors were buried beneath

the alluviation and replaced with artificial sea harbors (Blue, 1997; Dinçol et al.,

2000: 8).

This thesis also tried to overcome the prejudice that harbor settlements are

only located on seacoasts, and inland sites can only be land-based settlements.

Archaeological finds at sites in Cilicia, the Amuq and the northern Levantine coast

estuaries as harbors (Braudel, 1989: 55-57). The coastal route can explain the frequency of harbor

settlements along the Levant and the Cilician coasts (Sherratt and Sherratt, 1991: 357-358).

90

support the proposal that inland harbor settlements are associated with overseas as

well as inland sites.

In addition, according to this thesis, rivers can be seen as trade roads, since

rivers acted as linkage between sea and land and gave access to their natural

resources like timber, metals and maritime products.

In short, my thesis suggests harbor settlements in Cilicia and the Amuq

followed the Levantine model because of sharing a similar physical environment in

the northeastern Mediterranean. Harbors played a key role for the option for settling

and the development of many settlements and regions. In other words, harbors

determined the settlement patterns in the coastal zones and in the interior regions that

depended on them.

However, a next step requires that the model which is suggested in this thesis

be tested, since it can be verified or disclaimed only by archaeological fieldwork. An

intensive regional archaeological survey with interdisciplinary investigations (such

as geomorphologic and geophysical techniques) may document or recover the

Bronze Age Cilician harbor settlement patterns in their environmental and cultural

contexts. The main challenge for this archaeological survey is to determine the

location of the pre-classical harbor sites because of their difficult surface visibility97

.

My thesis, by defining some specific components from available archaeological data,

may help to recognize approximate or potential locations of harbor settlements

around the ancient or paleoriver courses across the Cilician plain. A more intensive

geo-archaeological study of the Cilician plain and the ancient river beds themselves

97

The absence of pre-classical (river) harbor structures or facilities and silting, modern urbanization

and vegetation.

91

may also provide evidence for their sediment history. Through such a study,

archaeology can date subsurface data and integrate these records with surveys

exploring harbor settlement patterns. In the Göksu plain, the ancient river course,

somewhere around the modern town of Bahçeköy, should be determined before

looking for the region’s ancient harbors such as Ura. In contrast, in the deep valley

upriver where the river course did not change, and also near sites such as Çingen

Tepe sediment history could be checked with some test trenches. Çingen Tepe could

produce information specific to river harbors and its surrounding areas. Likewise, the

northeastern part of Cilicia is significant for the relationship between harbor and

inland settlements. Archaeological research shows this part of the plain to be densely

populated during the LBA. Excavations at sites like Sirkeli are therefore very

promising for river harbors. Finally, the relationship between Tarsus and the ancient

coastline needs further documentation through survey.

This thesis can conclude that candidates for the 2nd

millennium BC harbors

and their settlements should be investigated around the ancient courses of main rivers

in Cilicia and Amuq: the Göksu, Seyhan, Ceyhan, and Asi rivers and their tributaries.

In addition, one can choose a river course and settlements around it to examine

harbor settlement patterns by geo-archaeological analyses, as well as

ethnoarchaeological evidence to compensate for the lack of archeological evidence/

study on the river transport. These analyses can be combined with related textual

evidence as well. Future research should elaborate this preliminary study, since

inland river harbors and river transport are untouched subjects for these regions.

92

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahrens, A., Kozal, E. and Novák, M. 2010. “Sirkeli Höyük in Smooth Cilicia. A

General Overview from the 4th

to the 1st Millennium BC.” In P. Matthiae, F.

Pinnock, L. Nigro, et al. eds., ICAANE Proceedings of the 6th

International

Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 2 Excavations,

Surveys and Restorations: Reports on Recent Field Archaeology in the Near

East. Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz Verlag, 55-74.

Aiello, A. and Dosmann, M. 2007. “The Quest for the Hardy Cedar-of-Lebanon,”

Arnoldia 65(1): 26-35.

Al-Maqdissi, M. et al. 2007. “Environmental Changes in the Jebleh Plain (Syria)

Geophysical, Geomorphological, Palynological Archaeological and Historical

Research,” Res Antiquae 4: 3-10.

Amiet, P. 1992. Sceaux-cylindres en hématite et pierres diverses. Paris: Éditions

Recherche sur les civilizations.

Ammerman, A. 2011. “The Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the

Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italy.” In G.

Vavouranakis, ed., The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory. Athens: Monographs

of the Danish Institute at Athens, 31-49.

Anderson, A. 2010. “The Origins and Development of Seafaring: Towards A Global

Approach.” In A. Anderson, J. Barrett, V. Boyle, eds., The Global Origins

and Development of Seafaring. Cambridge: McDonald Institute, 3-16.

Ardos, M. 1985. Türkiye Ovalarının Jeomorfolojisi (Geomorphology of the

Plains of the Turkey). (Vol. 2). İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları.

Artzy, M. 1994. “Incense, Camels and Collared Rim Jars: Desert Trade Routes, and

Maritime Outlets in the Second Millennium,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology

13(2): 121-147.

93

--------. 2006. “The Carmel Coast during the Second Part of the Late Bronze Age: A

Center for Eastern Mediterranean Transshipping,” Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 343: 45-64.

Astour, M. 1970. “Maʾḫadu, the Harbor of Ugarit,” Journal of the Economic and

Social History of the Orient 13(2): 113-127.

Atalay, I. 1997. Türkiye Bölgesel Coğrafyası (Regional Geography of Turkey).

İstanbul: İnkılap Kitabevi.

Baker, H. et al. 1995. “Kilise Tepe 1994,” Anatolian Studies 45: 139-191.

Bard, K. and Fattovich, R. 2010. Mersa/Wadi Gawasis 2009-2010,

http://www.archaeogate.org/storage/15_article_1331_1.pdf

Barker, W. 1853. Lares and Penates: or Cilicia and Its Governors. London: Ingram,

Cooke, and Co.

Bass, G. 1967. Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck. Philadelphia:

Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 57 Part 8.

--------. 1986. “A Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kaş): 1984 Campaign,”

American Journal of Archaeology 90(3): 269-296.

Beal, R. 1992. “The Location of Ura,” Anatolian Studies 142: 65-73.

Beach, T. and Luzzadder-Beach, S. 2008. “Geoarchaeology and Aggradation around

Kinet Höyük, An Archaeological Mound in the Eastern Mediterranean,

Turkey,” Geomorphology 101: 416-428.

Bell, C. 2005. “Wheels within Wheels? A View of Mycenaean Trade from the

Levantine Emporia,” Aegaeum 25(1): 363-369.

Bell, M. 1986. “A Hittite Pendant from Amarna,” American Journal of Archaeology

90(2): 145-151.

Bener, M. 1967. “Göksu Deltası,” İstanbul Üniversitesi Coğrafya Enstitüsü Dergisi

8(17): 86-100.

Bergoffen, C. 2005. The Cypriot Bronze Age Pottery from Sir Leonard Woolley’s

Excavations at Alalakh (Tell Atchana). Wien/ Austria: Verlag der

Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Bietak, M. 1991. “Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age,” Bulletin of the

American Schools of Orient Research 281: 27-72.

94

--------. 1996. Avaris the Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations at Tell el-

Daba’a. London: British Museum Press.

Blackmann, D. 1982. “Ancient Harbours in the Mediterranean. Part 1,” The

International Journal Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 11(2): 79-

104.

Blue, L. 1995. A Topographical Analysis of the Location of Harbours and

Anchorages of the Eastern Mediterranean in the Middle and Late Bronze

Ages, and Their Relation to Routes and Trade (D. Phil. Dissertation).

Pembroke College, Oxford: University of Oxford Press.

--------. 1997. “Cyprus and Cilicia: The Typology and Palaeogeography of Second

Millennium Harbors.” In S. Swiny, R. Hohlfelder, H. Swiny, eds., Res

Maritimae: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late

Antiquity. Proceeding of the Second International Symposium “Cities on the

Sea” Nicosia, Cyprus, October 18-22, 1994. Cyprus American Archaeological

Research Institute Monograph Series. (Vol.1). Atlanta-Georgia: Scholars

Press, 31-43.

Boardman, J. 2002. “Al Mina: The Study of A Site.” In G. Tsetskhladze, ed.,

Ancient West & East 1/ 2. Leiden: Brill, 315-331.

Braudel, F. 1989. Akdeniz ve Akdeniz Dünyası (La Mediterranée et le monde

mediterraneen à l’epoque de Philippe II).Translated from French by

Kılıçbay, M. İstanbul: Eren.

Bretschneider, J. et al. 2005. “Tell Tweini, Ancient Gabala, in the Bronze Age,”

Egypt and Levant 14: 215-230.

Bretschneider, J. and Hameeuw, H. 2008. “Urban Development at Tell Tweini.” In

J. Bretschneider, K. Lerberghe, eds., In Search of Gibala: An Archaeological

and Historical Study Based on Eight Seasons of Excavations at Tell Tweini

(Syria) in the A and C Fields (1999-2007). Barcelona: Editorial Ausa, 69-73.

Bretschneider, J. and Lerberghe, K. 2008a. “The Syro-Belgian “Tell Tweini”

Project.” In J. Bretschneider, K. Lerberghe, eds., In Search of Gibala: An

Archaeological and Historical Study Based on Eight Seasons of Excavations

at Tell Tweini (Syria) in the A and C Fields (1999-2007). Barcelona: Editorial

Ausa, 1-3.

--------. 2008b. “Tell Tweini, Ancient Gibala, between 2600 B.C.E. and 333 B.C.E.”

In J. Bretschneider, K. Lerberghe, eds., In Search of Gibala: An

Archaeological and Historical Study Based on Eight Seasons of Excavations

at Tell Tweini (Syria) in the A and C Fields (1999-2007). Barcelona: Editorial

Ausa, 11-68.

95

Bretschneider, J. et al. 2008. “The Late Bronze and Iron Age in the Jebleh Region:

A View from Tell Tweini.” In H. Kühne, R. Czichon, F. Kreppner, eds.,

Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the

Ancient Near East 29 March – 3 April 2004, Freie Universität Berlin Volume

2: Social and Cultural Transformation: The Archaeology of Transitional

Periods and Dark Ages Excavation Reports. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag,

35-46.

Bryce, T. 2005. The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Calvet, Y. 2007. “Ugarit: The Kingdom and the City-Urban Features.” In K.

Younger, ed., Ugarit at Seventy-Five. USA: Eisenbrauns, 101-111.

Caneva, I. 2004. “The Citadel Tradition (5000-4200 BC).” In I. Caneva, V. Sevin,

eds., Mersin-Yumuktepe Reappraisal. Lecce: Congedo, 57-73.

Caneva, I. and Köroğlu, G. 2004. “Yumuktepe Höyüğü Kazıları, 2002 Yılı

Çalışmaları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 25(2): 491-500.

--------. 2008. “Excavations at Mersin Yumuktepe Höyüğü in 2006,” Kazı Sonuçları

Toplantısı 29(2): 379-388.

--------. 2010. “Excavations at Yumuktepe: The 2008 Season,” Kazı Sonuçları

Toplantısı 31/3: 337-356.

Caneva, I. et al. 2005. “2003 Yılı Yumuktepe Höyüğü Kazıları,” Kazı Sonuçları

Toplantısı 26(2): 203-214.

Caneva, I. and Marcolongo, B. 2004. “The History of the Mound.” In I. Caneva,

V. Sevin, eds., Mersin-Yumuktepe Reappraisal. Lecce: Congedo, 23-31.

Carayon, N., Morhange, C. and Marriner, N. 2011-12. “Sidon’s Ancient Harbour:

Natural Characteristics and Hazards,” Archaeology and History in the

Lebanon Issue 34-35: 433-459.

Casana, J. and Wilkinson, T. 2005. “Settlement and Landscapes in the Amuq

Region.” In K. Yener, ed., The Amuq Valley Regional Projects Vol. 1 Surveys

in the Plain of Antioch and Asi Delta, Turkey. 1995-2002. Chicago: The

Oriental Institute Publications, 25-65.

Casana, J. 2007. “Structural Transformations in Settlement Systems of the Northern

Levant,” American Journal of Archaeology 111(2): 195-221.

--------. 2009. “Alalakh and the Archaeological Landscape of Mukish: The Political

Geography and Population of A Late Bronze Age Kingdom,” Bulletin of the

American Schools of Orient Research 353: 7-37.

96

Chernoff, M. and Paley, S. 1998. “Dynamics of Cereal Production at Tell el Ifshar,

Israel during the Middle Bronze Age,” Journal of Field Archaeology 25(4):

397-416.

Çiçek, I. 2001. “Geomorphology of Mut Region and Its Surroundings,” Fırat

University Journal of Social Science 11(2): 1- 20 (in Turkish with English

abstract).

Collon, S., Jackson, M. and Postgate, N. 2010. “Excavations at Kilise Tepe 2008,”

Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 31(1): 159-184.

Curtis, A. 1999. “Ras Shamra, Minet el-Beidha and Ras Ibn Hani: The Material

Sources.” In W. Watson, N. Wyatt, eds., Handbook of Ugaritic Studies.

Leiden: Brill, 5-27.

De Vos, J. 2002. “À propos des Aegyptiaca d’ Asie Mineure datés du IIe millénaire

av. J.-C.” Hethitica 15: 43-63.

Dinçol, A. et al. 2000. “The Borders of the Appanage Kingdom of Tarhuntassa- A

Geographical and Archaeological Assessment,” Anatolica: 1-29.

Doyuran, V. 1982. “Geological and Hydrogeological Features of Erzin and Dörtyol

Plains,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of Turkey 25: 151-160 (in Turkish

with English abstract).

Eriksson, K. 1991. “Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware: A Product of Late Bronze Age

Cyprus.” In J. Barlow, D. Bolger, B. Kling, eds., Cypriot Ceramics Reading

the Prehistoric Record. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 81-96.

Erinç, S. 1952-53. “Çukurovanın Alüvyal Morfolojisi Hakkında,” İstanbul

Üniversitesi Coğrafya Enstitüsü Dergisi 3-4: 147-159.

Erol, O. 1963. Asi Nehri Deltasının Jeomorfolojisi ve Dördüncü Zaman Deniz-

Akarsu Sekileri (Geomorphology of the Asi River Delta and, Quaternary

Period, the Fourth Time Sea-River Terraces). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi

Yayınları.

--------. 2003. “Geomorphological Evolution of the Ceyhan River Delta: Eastern

Mediterranean Coast of Turkey,” Aegean Geographical Journal 12: 59-81 (in

Turkish with English abstract).

Forstner-Müller, I. 2009. “Providing A Map of Avaris,” Egyptian Archaeology 34:

10-13.

French, D. 1965. “Prehistoric Sites in the Göksu Valley,” Anatolian Studies 15: 177-

201.

97

Frost, H. 1995. “Harbours and Proto-Harbours; Early Levantine Engineering.” In

V. Karageorghis, D. Michaelides, eds., Proceeding of the International

Symposium Cyprus and Sea. Nicosia: University of Cyprus Press, 1-22.

Gale, N. and Stos-Gale, Z. 2006. “Uluburun Batığı Bakır Külçelerinin Kaynak

Analizi ve Geç Tunç Çağı’nda Akdeniz’de Metal Ticareti.” In Ü. Yalçın,

C. Pulak, R. Slotta, eds., Uluburun Gemisi 3000 Yıl Önce Dünya Ticareti

(Das Schiff von Uluburun Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren). İstanbul: Ege

Yayınları, 119-133.

Garstang, J. 1953. Prehistoric Mersin Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. Oxford: The

Clarendon Press.

Gates, M.-H. 1992. “Mycenaean Art for A Levantine Market? The Ivory Lid from

Minet El Beidha/Ugarit,” Aegaeum 8: 77-84.

--------. 1994. “1992 Excavations at Kinet Höyük (Dörtyol/Hatay),” Kazı Sonuçları

Toplantısı 15: 193-200.

--------. 1999a. “1997 Excavations at Kinet Höyük (Yeşil-Dörtyol, Hatay),” Kazı

Sonuçları Toplantısı 20: 259-281.

--------. 1999b. “Kinet Höyük in Eastern Cilicia: A Case Study for Acculturation in

Ancient Harbors,” Olba 2: 303-310.

--------. 2001a. “1999 Excavations at Kinet Höyük (Yeşil-Dörtyol, Hatay),” Kazı

Sonuçları Toplantısı 22: 203-222.

--------. 2001b. “Potmarks at Kinet Höyük and the Hittite Ceramic Industry.” In Ѐ.

Jean, A. Dinçol, S. Durugönül, eds., La Cilicie: Espaces et pouvoirs locaux

(Kilikia: Mekanlar ve Yerel Güçler, M.Ö. 2. Binyıl- M.S. 4.Yüzyıl).

Uluslararası Yuvarlak Masa Toplantısı Bildirileri, İstanbul 2-5 Kasım 1999.

Varia Anatolica XIII. Paris-İstanbul: Institut Français d’Ètudes Anatoliennes,

137-157.

--------. 2002. “Kinet Höyük 2000 (Yeşil-Dörtyol, Hatay),” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı

23(2): 55-62.

--------. 2003a. “2001 Season at Kinet Höyük (Yeşil-Dörtyol, Hatay),” Kazı

Sonuçları Toplantısı 24(1): 283-298.

--------. 2003b. “Kinet Höyük 2002,” Anadolu Akedenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri 1:17-

19.

--------. 2005. “2003 Season at Kinet Höyük (Yeşil-Dörtyol, Hatay),” Kazı Sonuçları

Toplantısı 26(1): 163-173.

98

--------. 2006. “Dating the Hittite Levels at Kinet Höyük: A Revised Chronology,”

BYZAS 4: 293-309.

--------. 2007. “2005 Season at Kinet Höyük (Yeşil-Dörtyol, Hatay),” Kazı Sonuçları

Toplantısı 28(2): 685-700.

--------. 2008. “2006 Season at Kinet Höyük (Yeşil-Dörtyol, Hatay),” Kazı Sonuçları

Toplantısı 29(2): 282-298.

--------. 2009. “2007 Season at Kinet Höyük (Yeşil-Dörtyol, Hatay),” Kazı Sonuçları

Toplantısı 30(2): 351-368.

--------. 2011a. “2009 Season at Kinet Höyük (Yeşil-Dörtyol, Hatay),” Kazı

Sonuçları Toplantısı 32(3): 182-195.

--------. 2011b. “Southern and Southeastern Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age.” In

S. Steadman, G. McMahon, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia

10,000-323 B.C.E. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 394-412.

--------. 2011c. “Maritime Business in the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean: The

View from Its Ports.” In K. Duistermaat, I. Regulski, eds., Intercultural

Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean. Proceedings of the International

Conference at the Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo, 28th

to 29th

October

2008. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Peeters, 381-394.

Genz, H. 2006. “Geç Tunç Çağı’nda Levant Bölgesi’ndeki Zanaat ve Ticaret.” In

Ü. Yalçın, C. Pulak, R. Slotta, eds., Uluburun Gemisi 3000 Yıl Önce Dünya

Ticareti (Das Schiff von Uluburun Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren). İstanbul:

Ege Yayınları, 375-382.

Girginer, K. 2000. “Tepebağ Höyük (URUAdaniia) Kizzuwatna Ülkesinin Başkenti

miydi?.” In E. Artun, M. Koz, eds., Efsaneden Tarihe, Tarihten Bugüne

Adana: Köprübaşı (From Myth to History, From History to Present

Adana: Köprübaşı). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 71-85.

--------. 2010. “Anadolu Arkeolojisi/Kizzuwatna-Kilikya Tatarlı Höyük,” Aktüel

Arkeoloji Dergisi 15: 74-85.

Goetze, A. 1936. “Philological Remarks on the Bilingual Bulla from Tarsus,”

American Journal of Archaeology 40(2): 210-214.

Goldman, H. 1956. Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus: From the Neolithic through

the Bronze Age. (Vol. 2). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Grave, P. et al. 2008. “Using Neutron Activation Analysis to Identify Scales of

Interaction at Kinet Höyük, Turkey,” Journal of Archaeological Science 35:

1974-1992.

99

Gürbüz, K. 1999. “An Example of River Course Changes on a Delta Plain: Seyhan

Delta (Çukurova plain, southern Turkey),” Geological Journal 34: 211-222.

Hansen, C. and Postgate, J. 1999. “The Bronze to Iron Age Transition at Kilise

Tepe,” Anatolian Studies 49: 111-121.

Hassan, F. 1997. “The Dynamics of a Riverine Civilization: A Geoarchaeological

Perspective on the Nile Valley, Egypt,” World Archaeology 29(1): 51-74.

Heltzer, M. 1999. “The Economy of Ugarit.” In W. Watson, N. Wyatt, eds.,

Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Leiden: Brill, 423-454.

Hirschfeld, N. 2006. “Uluburun Batığı’nda Ele Geçen Kıbrıs Keramiği.” In

Ü. Yalçın, C. Pulak, R. Slotta, eds., Uluburun Gemisi 3000 Yıl Önce Dünya

Ticareti (Das Schiff von Uluburun Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren).

İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 105-110.

Horden, P. and Purcell, N. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean

History. Oxford and Massachusetts: Blackwell.

Höckmann, O. 2006. “ M.Ö. 2. Binde Doğu Akdeniz’de Gemi Yolculuğu.” In

Ü. Yalçın, C. Pulak, R. Slotta, eds., Uluburun Gemisi 3000 Yıl Önce Dünya

Ticareti (Das Schiff von Uluburun Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren).

İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 311-326.

Jean, Ѐ. 2003. “From Bronze to Iron Ages in Cilicia: The Pottery in Its Stratigraphic

Context.” In B. Fischer, G. Hermann, Ѐ. Jean, et al. eds., Identifying Changes:

The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and Its Neighbouring

Regions. Proceedings of International Workshop, İstanbul November 8-9

2002. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 79-91.

--------. 2006. “The Hittites at Mersin-Yumuktepe: Old Problems and New

Directions,” BYZAS 4: 311-332.

Johnstone, P. 1988. The Sea-Craft of Prehistory. (2nd

ed). London and New York:

Routledge.

Kaniewski, D. et al. 2010. “Late Second–Early First Millennium BC Abrupt Climate

Changes in Coastal Syria and Their Possible Significance for the History of

the Eastern Mediterranean,” Quaternary Research 74: 207-215.

Kayan, İ. 1993. “Holocene Raised Shorelines on the Hatay Coasts (Türkiye):

Palaeoecological and Tectonic Implications,” Aegean Geographical Journal 7:

43-76 (in Turkish with English abstract).

Keçer, M. and Duman, T. 2007. “Yapay Etkinliklerin Göksu Deltası Gelişimine

Etkisi, Mersin-Türkiye,” Maden Tetkik ve Arama Dergisi 134: 17- 26.

100

Killebrew, A., Lehmann, G. and M.-H., Gates 2009. “Summary of the 2007 Cilicia

Survey (İskenderun Bay Region),”Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 26(3): 227-

238.

Killebrew, A. 2011. “Summary of the 2009 Cilicia Survey (İskenderun Bay

Region),”Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 28(1): 39-46.

Koç, Ö. 2007. Göksu Deltası’nın (Silifke-Mersin) Jeolojik Gelişimi (Yüksek Lisans

Tezi) Mersin Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Jeoloji Mühendisliği

Anabilim Dalı, Mersin.

Kozal, E. 2003. “Analysis of the Distribution Patterns of Red Lustrous Wheel-made

Ware, Mycenaean and Cypriot Pottery in Anatolia in the 15th

–13th

Centuries

B.C.” In B. Fischer, G. Hermann, Ѐ. Jean, et al. eds., Identifying Changes:

The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and Its Neighbouring

Regions. Proceedings of International Workshop, İstanbul November 8-9

2002. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 65-77.

--------. 2005. “Unpublished Middle and Late Cypriot Pottery from Tarsus-

Gözlükule.” In A. Özyar, ed., Field Seasons 2001-2003 of the Tarsus –

Gözlükule Interdisciplinary Research Project. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 135-

144.

Knappett, C. et al. 2005. “The Circulation and Consumption of Red Lustrous

Wheelmade Ware: Petrographic, Chemical and Residue Analysis,” Anatolian

Studies 55: 25-59.

Kuruçaylı, E. and Özbal, H. 2005 “New Metal Analysis from Tarsus-Gözlükule.” In

A. Özyar, ed., Field Seasons 2001-2003 of the Tarsus – Gözlükule

Interdisciplinary Research Project. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 177-195.

Latacz, J. and Starke, F. 2006. “M.Ö. 2. Binyılın Yarısında Doğu Akdeniz

Bölgesi’nin Politik Coğrafyası.” In Ü. Yalçın, C. Pulak, R. Slotta, eds.,

Uluburun Gemisi 3000 Yıl Önce Dünya Ticareti (Das Schiff von Uluburun

Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren). İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 189-194.

Lehmann, G., Killebrew, A. and Gates, M.-H. 2008. “Summary of the 2006 Cilicia

Survey (İskenderun Bay Region),” Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 25(3): 171-

188.

Linder, E. 1981. “Ugarit: A Canaanite Thalassocracy.” In G. Young, ed., Ugarit in

Retrospect. Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 31-42.

--------. 1986. “The Khorsabad Wall Relief: A Mediterranean Seascape or River

Transport of Timbers,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 106(2): 273-

281.

101

Linseele, V. 2008. “Faunal Remains from Tell Tweini. A First Report.” In J.

Bretschneider, K. Lerberghe, eds., In Search of Gibala: An Archaeological

and Historical Study Based on Eight Seasons of Excavations at Tell Tweini

(Syria) in the A and C Fields (1999-2007). Barcelona: Editorial Ausa, 143-

149.

Marcus, E. 2002. “Early Seafaring and Maritime Activity in the Southern Levant

from Prehistory through the Third Millennium BCE.” In E. van der Brink,

and T. Levy, eds., Egypt and Levant: Interrelations from the 4th

through the

Early 3rd

Millennium BCE. London-New York: Leicester University Press,

403-417.

--------. 2007. “Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina

(Memphis) Inscription,” Egypt and the Levant 12: 137-190.

Marcus, E., Porath, Y. and Paley, S. 2008. “The Early Middle Bronze Age IIa Phases

at Tel Ifshar and Their External Relations,” Egypt and Levant 18: 221-244.

Margueron, J.-CL. 2004. Mari Métropole de l’Euphrate au IIIe et au début du II

e

millénaire av. J.-C. Paris: Picard.

Maguire, L. 1995. “Tell el-Dab’a the Cypriot Connection.” In W. Davies, L.

Schofield, eds., Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant Interconnections in the

Second Millennium BC. London: British Museum Press, 54-65.

Marriner, N. and Morhange, C. 2007. “Geoscience of Ancient Mediterranean

Harbours,” Earth-Science Reviews 80: 137–194.

Marriner, N. et al. 2012. “Ancient Harbors and Holocene Morphogenesis of the Ras

Ibn Hani Peninsula (Syria),” Quaternary Research 78: 35-49.

Matthӓus, H. 2006. “Geç Tunç Çağı’nda Akdeniz’de Kültürel Arası İlişkiler, Ticaret

ve Deniz Seferleri.” In Ü. Yalçın, C. Pulak, R. Slotta, eds., Uluburun Gemisi

3000 Yıl Önce Dünya Ticareti (Das Schiff von Uluburun Welthandel vor

3000 Jahren). İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 335-368.

McGrail, S. 2010. “The Global Origin of Seagoing Water Transport.” In A.

Anderson, J. Barrett, V. Boyle, eds., The Global Origins and Development

of Seafaring. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Press, 95-107.

Mee, C. 1978. “Aegean Trade and Settlement in Anatolia in the Second Millennium

B.C.,” Anatolian Studies 28: 121-156.

--------. 1998. “Anatolia and the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age,” Aegaeum 18:137-

149.

102

Mikesell, M. 1969. “The Deforestation of Mount Lebanon,” Geographical Review

59(1): 1-28.

Monroe, C. 2007. “Vessel Volumetrics and the Myth of the Cyclopean Bronze Age

Ship,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 50(1): 1-18.

Mountjoy, P. 2005. “The Mycenaean Pottery from the 1934-1939 Excavations at

Tarsus.” In A. Özyar, ed., Field Seasons 2001-2003 of the Tarsus – Gözlükule

Interdisciplinary Research Project. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 83-134.

Müller-Karpe, A. 2006. “Hititler’de Metal Külçeler.” In Ü. Yalçın, C. Pulak, R.

Slotta, eds., Uluburun Gemisi 3000 Yıl Önce Dünya Ticareti (Das Schiff von

Uluburun Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren). İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 487- 494.

Newhard, J., Levine, N. and Rutherford, A. 2008. “Least-Cost Pathway Analysis and

Inter-Regional Interaction in the Göksu Valley, Turkey,” Anatolian Studies

58: 87-102.

Niemeier, W-D. and Niemeier, B. 1998. “Minoan Frescoes in the Eastern

Mediterranean,” Aegaeum 18: 71- 98.

Novák, M. et al. 2009. “2006-2007 Yıllarında Sirkeli Höyük’te (Adana-Ceyhan)

Yapılan Türk-Alman Kazıları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 30(3): 297-310.

Novák, M. and Kozal, E. 2010. “Sirkeli Höyük’te 2008 Yılı Çalışmaları,” Kazı

Sonuçları Toplantısı 31(3): 477- 490.

--------. 2011. “Sirkeli Höyük 2009 Yılı Çalışmaları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı

32(4): 42-50.

Nymoen, P. 2008. “Boats for Rivers and Mountains: Sources for New Narratives

About River Travel?,” The International of Nautical Archaeology 37(1): 3-16.

Ozaner, S. 1993. “Iskenderun Körfezi Çevresindeki Antik Yerleşim Alanlarının

Jeomorfolojik Yönden Yorumu,” Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 8: 337-

355.

--------. 1995. “Dörtyol-Payas (Issos) Ovası’nda (Antakya) Tarihi Çağlardan

Günümüze Süregelen Jeomorfolojik Değişikliklerin Kinet Höyük Üzerindeki

Etkileri,” Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 12: 513-527.

Ownby, M. and Smith, L. 2011. “The Impact of Changing Political Situations on

Trade between Egypt and the Near East: A Provenance Study of Canaanite

Jars from Memphis, Egypt.” In K. Duistermaat, I. Regulski, eds.,

Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean. Proceedings of the

International Conference at the Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo, 28th

to 29th

October 2008. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Peeters, 267-284.

103

Öner, E., Hocaoğlu, B. and Uncu, L. 2005 “Palaeogeographical Surveys Around the

Mound of Gözlükule (Tarsus),” In A. Özyar, ed., Field Seasons 2001-2003 of

the Tarsus – Gözlükule Interdisciplinary Research Project. İstanbul: Ege

Yayınları, 69-82.

Öner, E. 2008. “Alluvial Geomorphology and Paleogeographical Studies on the Asi

(Asi) Delta Plain (Antakya/HATAY),” Aegean Geographical Journal

17(1-2): 1-25 (in Turkish with English abstract).

Özgen, İ. and Gates, M.-H. 1993. “Report on the Bilkent University Archaeological

Survey in Cilicia and the Northern: August 1991,” Araştırma Sonuçları

Toplantısı 10: 387-394.

Özgüç, T. 2005. Kültepe Kaniš / Neša. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.

Özyar, A. 2005. “Introduction.” In A. Özyar, ed., Field Seasons 2001-2003 of the

Tarsus – Gözlükule Interdisciplinary Research Project. İstanbul: Ege

Yayınları, 1-7.

Özyar, A., Danışman, G. and Özbal, H. 2005. “Field Seasons 2001-2003 of the

Tarsus – Gözlükule Interdisciplinary Research Project.” In A. Özyar, ed.,

Field Seasons 2001-2003 of the Tarsus – Gözlükule Interdisciplinary

Research Project. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 8-47.

Pamir, H. and Nishiyama, S. 2002. “The Asi Delta Survey: Archaeological

Investigation of Ancient Trade Stations/ Settlements.” In G. Tsetskhladze,

ed., Ancient West & East 1/ 2. Leiden: Brill, 294-314.

Pamir, H. 2005. “The Asi Delta Survey,” In K. Yener, ed., The Amuq Valley

Regional Projects Vol. 1 Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Asi Delta,

Turkey. 1995-2002. Chicago: The Oriental Institute Publications, 67-98.

--------. 2006. “Al Mina and Sabuniye in the Asi Delta: The Sites.” In G.

Tsetskhladze, ed., Greek Colonisation an Account of Greek Colonies and

Other Settlements Overseas. (Vol. 1). Leiden-Boston: Brill, 535-543.

Panagiotopoulos, D. 2011. “The Stirring Sea. Conceptualising Transculturality in the

Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean.” In K. Duistermaat, I. Regulski,

eds., Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean. Proceedings of the

International Conference at the Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo, 28th

to 29th

October 2008. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Peeters, 31-51.

104

Pedrazzi, T. 2010. “Globalization Versus Regionalism: LB II/Iron I Transition in

Coastal Syria from the Storage Jars Point of View.” In F. Venturi, ed.,

Societies in Transition Evolutionary Processes in the Northern Levant

between Late Bronze Age II and Early Iron Age. Papers Presented on the

Occasion of the 20th

Anniversary of the New Excavations in Tell Afis Bologna,

15th November 2007. Bologna: CLUEB, 53-64.

Peker, H. and De Vos, J. 2010. “Hitit-Mısır Büyük Düşmanlıktan İyi Kardeşliğe,”

Arkeoatlas 7: 82-105.

Polzer, M. 2011. “Early Shipbuilding in the Eastern Mediterranean.” In A.

Catsambis, B. Ford, and D. Hamilton, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Maritime

Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 349- 378.

Pomey, P. 2011. “Defining a Ship: Architecture, Function, and Human Space.” In

A. Catsambis, B. Ford, and D. Hamilton, eds., The Oxford Handbook of

Maritime Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25-46.

Postgate, N. 1992. Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of

History. London and New York: Routledge.

--------. 2007a. “Introduction to the Project and the Publication.” In N. Postgate,

D. Thomas, eds., Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994-98: From Bronze Age to

Byzantine in Western Cilicia. (Vol.1). BIIA Monograph 30, London:

McDonald Institute Monographs, 3-8.

--------. 2007b. “The Site of Kilise Tepe.” In N. Postgate, D. Thomas, eds.,

Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994-98: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in

Western Cilicia. (Vol.1). BIIA Monograph 30, London: McDonald Institute

Monographs, 9-13.

--------. 2007c. “The Kilise Tepe Area in Pre-Classical and Hellenistic Times.” In

N. Postgate, D. Thomas, eds., Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994-98: From

Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia. (Vol.1). BIIA Monograph 30,

London: McDonald Institute Monographs, 15-29.

--------. 2007d. “The Excavations and Their Results.” In N. Postgate, D. Thomas,

eds., Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994-98: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in

Western Cilicia. (Vol.1). BIIA Monograph 30, London: McDonald Institute

Monographs, 31-42.

--------. 2007e. “The Ceramics of Centralisation and Dissolution: A Case Study from

Rough Cilicia,” Anatolian Studies 57: 141-150.

Pulak, C. 1998. “The Uluburun shipwreck: An Overview,” The International of

Nautical Archaeology 27(3): 188-224.

105

--------. 2006. “Uluburun Batığı.” In Ü. Yalçın, C. Pulak, R. Slotta, eds., Uluburun

Gemisi 3000 Yıl Önce Dünya Ticareti (Das Schiff von Uluburun Welthandel

vor 3000 Jahren). İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 57-104.

Raban, A. 1985. “The Ancient Harbours of Israel in Biblical Times.” In A. Raban,

ed., Harbour Archaeology Proceedings of the First International Workshop

on Ancient Mediterranean Harbours Caesarea Maritima 24-28.6.83. Oxford:

BAR International Series 257, 11-44.

--------. 1988. “Coastal Process and Ancient Harbour Engineering.” In A. Raban, ed.,

Archaeology of Coastal Changes. Oxford: BAR International Series 404, 185-

208.

--------. 1991. “Minoan and Canaanite Harbours,” Aegaeum 7: 129-146.

--------. 1995. “The Heritage of Ancient Harbour Engineering in Cyprus and the

Levant.” In V. Karageorghis, D. Michaelides, eds., Proceeding of the

International Symposium Cyprus and Sea. Nicosia: University of Cyprus

Press, 139-189.

Reese, D. 2010. “Shells from Sarepta (Lebanon) and East Mediterranean Purple-Dye

Production,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 10(1): 113-141.

Roberts, N. et al. 2011. “The Mid-Holocene Climatic Transition in the

Mediterranean: Causes and Consequences,” The Holocene 21(1): 3-13.

Rowton, M. 1967. “The Woodlands of Ancient Western Asia,” Journal of Near

Eastern Studies 26(4): 261-277.

Ruscillo, D. 2005. “Reconstructing Murex Royal Purple and Biblical Blue in the

Aegean.” In D. Bar-Yosef Mayer, ed., Archaeomalacology Mollucs in Former

Environments of Human Behavior. Prooceedings of the 9th

Conference of the

International Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002. Durham:

Oxbow, 99-106.

Russell, R. 1954. “Alluvial Morphology of Anatolian River,” Annals of the

Association of American Geographers 44(4): 363-391.

Sader, H. and Kamlah, J. 2010. “A New Middle Bronze Age Site from Lebanon,”

Near Eastern Archaeology 73(2-3): 130-141.

Salmeri, G. and D’Agata, A. 2003. “Cilicia Survey 2001,” Araştırma Sonuçları

Toplantısı 20(1): 207-211.

Sauvage, C. 2007. “Warehouses and the Economic System of the City of Ugarit The

Example of the 80 Jar Deposit and Deposit 213 from Minet el-Beidha,”

Ugarit-Forschungen 38: 617-629.

106

Schubert, C. and Kozal, E. 2007. “Preliminary Results of Scientific and Petrographic

Analyses on Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware and Other LBA Ceramics from

Central Anatolia and Cyprus.” In I. Hein, ed., The Lustrous Wares of Late

Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean: Papers of a Conference,

Vienna 5th–6th of November 2004.Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen

Akademie der Wissenschaften Austrian Academy of Science Press, 169-178.

Semple, E. 1971. The Geography of the Mediterranean Region Its Relation to

Ancient History. New York: AMS.

Seton-Williams, M. 1954. “Cilician Survey,” Anatolian Studies 4: 121-175.

Sevin, V. and Caneva, I. 1995. “1993 Yılı Mersin/Yumuktepe Kazıları,” Kazı

Sonuçları Toplantısı 16(1): 27-41.

Sevin, V., Caneva, I. and Köroğlu, K. 1997. “1995 Yılı Mersin/ Yumuktepe

Kazıları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 18(1): 23-41.

Sevin, V. 2004. “Introduction.” In I. Caneva, V. Sevin, eds., Mersin-Yumuktepe

Reappraisal. Lecce: Congedo, 15-19

Shaw, J. 1990. “Bronze Age Aegean Harboursides.” In D. Hardy, C. Doumas,

J. Sakellarakis, et al. eds., Thera and the Aegean World III, Vol. 1,

Archaeology. Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini,

Greece 3-9 September 1989. London: The Thera Foundation, 420-437.

---------. 2006. Kommos: A Minoan Harbor Town and Greek Sanctuary in Southern

Crete. Italy: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Sherratt, E. and Crouwel, J. 1987. “Mycenaean Pottery from Cilicia in Oxford,”

Oxford Journal of Archaeology 6(3): 325-352.

Sherratt, A. and Sherratt, S. 1991. “From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of

Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems.” In N. Gale, ed., Bronze Age

Trade in the Mediterranean. Papers Presented at the Conference Held at

Rewley House, Oxford in December 1989. SIMA Vol. 90 (Studies in

Mediterranean Archaeology) Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag, 351-378.

Simpson, W. 1973. The Literature of Ancient Egypt An Anthology of Stories,

Instructions and Poetry. (New Edition). New Haven and London: Yale

University Press.

Singer, I. 1999. “A Political History of Ugarit.” In W. Watson, N. Wyatt, eds.,

Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Leiden: Brill, 603-733.

Soles, J. 2005. “From Ugarit to Mochlos-Remnants of An Ancient Voyage,”

Aegaeum 25(2): 429-439.

107

Steffy, J. 2011. “Illustrated Glossary of Ship and Boat Terms.” In A. Catsambis, B.

Ford, and D. Hamilton, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1105-1150.

Stieglitz, R. 1984. “Long-Distance Seafaring in the Ancient Near East,” The Biblical

Archaeologist 47(3): 134-142.

Stone, E. and Zimansky, P. 1992. “Mashkan-shapir and the Anatomy of An Old

Babylonian City,” The Biblical Archaeologist 55(4): 212-218.

--------. 2004. The Anatomy of a Mesopotamian City: Survey and Soundings at

Mashkan-shapir. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

Sumaka’i-Fink, A. 2010. Late Bronze Age Tell Atchana (Alalakh): Stratigraphy,

Chronology, History. Oxford: BAR International Series 2120 (Archaeopress).

Symington, D. 2001 “Hittites at Kilise Tepe.” In Ѐ. Jean, A. Dinçol, S. Durugönül,

eds., La Cilicie: Espaces et pouvoirs locaux (Kilikia: Mekanlar ve Yerel

Güçler, M.Ö. 2. Binyıl- M.S. 4. Yüzyıl). Uluslararası Yuvarlak Masa

Toplantısı Bildirileri, İstanbul 2-5 Kasım 1999. Varia Anatolica XIII. Paris-

İstanbul: Institut Français d’Ètudes Anatoliennes 167-184.

Taffet, A. 2001. “The Likely Locations of Middle and Late Bronze Age Harbors in

Cilicia.” In Ѐ. Jean, A. Dinçol, S. Durugönül, eds., La Cilicie: Espaces et

pouvoirs locaux (Kilikia: Mekanlar ve Yerel Güçler, M.Ö. 2. Binyıl- M.S. 4.

Yüzyıl). Uluslararası Yuvarlak Masa Toplantısı Bildirileri, İstanbul 2-5

Kasım 1999. Varia Anatolica XIII. Paris-İstanbul: Institut Français d’Ètudes

Anatoliennes, 127-135.

Tronchere, H. et al., 2008. “Geoarchaeology of Avaris: First Results,” Egypt and

Levant 13: 327-340.

Tubb, J. 1998. Peoples of the Past Canaanites. London: British Museum Press.

Ünlü, E. 2005. “Locally Produced and Painted Late Bronze to Iron Age Transitional

Period Pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule.” In A. Özyar, ed., Field Seasons 2001-

2003 of the Tarsus– Gözlükule Interdisciplinary Research Project. İstanbul:

Ege Yayınları, 145-168.

Van Soldt, W. 1995. “Ugarit: A Second-Millennium Kingdom on the Mediterranean

Coast.” In J. Sasson, ed., Civilizations of the Ancient Near East 2. New York:

Scribners, 1255-1266.

108

Vann, R. 1997. “A Classification of Ancient Harbors in Cilicia.” In S. Swiny,

R. Hohlfelder, H. Swiny, eds., Res Maritimae: “Cities on the Sea” Nicosia,

Cyprus, October 18-22, 1994. Cyprus American Archaeological Research

Institute Monograph Series. (Vol. 1). Atlanta-Georgia: Scholars Press, 307-

319.

Vansteenhuyse, K. 2008. “The Ceramic Material from Tell Tweini-Field A.”

In J. Bretschneider, K. Lerberghe, eds., In Search of Gibala: An

Archaeological and Historical Study Based on Eight Seasons of Excavations

at Tell Tweini (Syria) in the A and C Fields (1999-2007). Barcelona: Editorial

Ausa, 103-140.

Vita, J-P. 1999. “The Society of Ugarit.” In W. Watson, N. Wyatt, eds., Handbook

of Ugaritic Studies. Leiden: Brill, 455-498.

Wachsmann, S. 1998. Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant.

College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Ward, C. 2006. “Boat-Building and Its Social Context in Early Egypt: Interpretations

from the First Dynasty Boat-Grave Cemetery at Abydos,” Antiquity 80: 118-

129.

Ward, C. and Zazzaro, C. 2010. “Evidence for Pharaonic Seagoing Ships at Mersa/

Wadi Gawasis, Egypt,” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology

30(1): 27-43.

Wells, L. 2004. “Geoarchaeological Investigations at Mashkan-Shapir.” In E. Stone,

P. Zimansky, eds., The Anatomy of a Mesopotamian City: Survey and

Soundings at Mashkan-shapir. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 18-25.

Wilkinson, T. 2003. Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East. Tucson: The

University of Arizona.

Wijngaarden, G. 2002. Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant,

Cyprus and Italy (ca. 1600-1200 BC). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University

Press.

Woolley, L. 1938. “Excavations at Al Mina, Sueidia. I. The Archaeological Report,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 58(1): 1-30.

--------. 1955. Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay,

1937-1949. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries

of London. No. XVIII. London: Oxford University Press.

--------. 1959. A Forgotten Kingdom. London: Max Parrish.

109

Yalçın, Ü. 2006. “Tarih Yazan Gemi: Uluburun.” In Ü. Yalçın, C. Pulak, R. Slotta,

eds., Uluburun Gemisi 3000 Yıl Önce Dünya Ticareti (Das Schiff von

Uluburun Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren). İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 21-26.

Yalçın, Ü., Pulak, C. and Slotta, R. 2006. “Eser Kataloğu.” In Ü. Yalçın, C. Pulak, R.

Slotta, eds., Uluburun Gemisi 3000 Yıl Önce Dünya Ticareti (Das Schiff von

Uluburun Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren). İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 559-679.

Yağcı, R. 2001. “The Importance of Soli in the Archaeology of Cilicia in the Second

Millennium B.C.” In Ѐ. Jean, A. Dinçol, S. Durugönül, eds., La Cilicie:

Espaces et pouvoirs locaux (Kilikia: Mekanlar ve Yerel Güçler, M.Ö. 2.

Binyıl- M.S. 4. Yüzyıl). Uluslararası Yuvarlak Masa Toplantısı Bildirileri,

İstanbul 2-5 Kasım 1999. Varia Anatolica XIII. Paris-İstanbul: Institut

Français d’Ètudes Anatoliennes, 159-165.

--------. 2003. “The Stratigraphy of Cyprus WSII & Mycenaean Cups in Soli Höyük

Excavations.” In B. Fischer, G. Hermann, Ѐ. Jean, et al. eds., Identifying

Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and İts

Neighbouring Regions. Proceedings of International Workshop, İstanbul

November 8-9 2002. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 93-106.

--------. 2004. “Soli / Pompeiopolis 2006 Yılı Kazıları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı

25(2): 49-60.

--------. 2006a. “Soli / Pompeiopolis Antik Liman Kenti 2004 Yılı Kazıları,” Kazı

Sonuçları Toplantısı 27(2): 33-42.

--------. 2006b. Soli / Pompeiopolis 2005 Kazıları,” Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji

Haberleri 4:57-60.

--------. 2007. “Soli / Pompeiopolis 2005 Yılı Kazıları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı

28(2): 175-184.

--------. 2008. “Soloi / Pompeiopolis 2006 Yılı Kazıları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı

29(3): 149-166.

Yağcı, R. and Kaya, F. 2009. “Soli / Pompeiopolis Antik Liman Kenti 2007 Yılı

Kazıları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 30(3): 465-474.

--------. 2010. “Soli / Pompeiopolis 2008 Yılı Kazıları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı

3(2): 333-342.

Yağcı, R. 2010. “Soloi / Pompeiopolis 2009 Yılı Kazıları,” Anadolu Akdenizi

Arkeoloji Haberleri 8: 104-110.

--------. 2011. “Mersin’in Antik Dönem Ticaret Tarihinde Soli Pompeipolis Limanı,”

Mersin Deniz Ticareti 8-11.

110

Yakar, J. 2000. Ethnoarchaeology of Anatolia: Rural Socio-Economy in the Bronze

and Iron Ages. Jerusalem: Tel Aviv University Press.

--------. 2001. “The Socio-Economic Organization of the Rural Sector in

Kizzuwatna.” In Ѐ. Jean, A. Dinçol, S. Durugönül, eds., La Cilicie: Espaces

et pouvoirs locaux (Kilikia: Mekanlar ve Yerel Güçler, M.Ö. 2. Binyıl- M.S. 4.

Yüzyıl). Uluslararası Yuvarlak Masa Toplantısı Bildirileri, İstanbul 2-5 Kasım

1999. Varia Anatolica XIII. Paris-İstanbul: Institut Français d’Ètudes

Anatoliennes, 37-46.

Yener, K. 1998. “A View from the Amuq in South-Central Turkey: Societies in

Transformation in the Second Millennium BC,” Aegaeum 18: 273-280.

Yener, K. et al. 2000. “The Amuq Valley Regional Project, 1995-1998,” American

Journal of Archaeology 104(2): 163-220.

Yener, K., Harrison, T. and Pamir, H. 2002. “University of Chicago Oriental Institute

2000 Yılı Hatay Aççana, Tayinat Höyükleri ve Samandağı Yüzey

Araştırmaları,” Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 19 (2): 289-302.

Yener, K., Schloen, D. and Sumaka’i-Fink, A. 2005. “University of Chicago,

Oriental Institute Aççana Höyük (Antik Alalakh) Çalışmaları 2003,” Kazı

Sonuçları Toplantısı 26(1): 45-52.

Yener, K. 2005a. “Alalakh Spatial Organization.” In K. Yener, ed., The Amuq Valley

Regional Projects Vol. 1 Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Asi Delta,

Turkey. 1995-2002. Chicago: The Oriental Institute Publications, 98-152.

--------. 2005b. “Conclusions The Amuq Valley and Its Wider Context.” In K. Yener,

ed., The Amuq Valley Regional Projects Vol. 1 Surveys in the Plain of

Antioch and Asi Delta, Turkey. 1995-2002. Chicago: The Oriental

Institute Publications, 193-202.

--------. 2007. “The Anatolian Middle Bronze Age Kingdoms and Alalakh: Mukish,

Kanesh and Trade,” Anatolian Studies 57: 151-160.

--------. 2008. “Alalakh (Aççana Höyüğü) 2006 Yılı Çalışmaları,” Kazı Sonuçları

Toplantısı 29(2): 171-186.

--------. 2011. “Alalakh Kenti 2009 Çalışmaları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 32(2):

70-81.

Yıldırım, T. 2010. Tarihi Kent Adana ve Tepebağ Höyüğü Projesi ile Tarihe

Dokunuş (Historic City of Adana and Touch History with Project of Tepebağ

Mound). Adana: Adana Ticaret Odası Yayınları.

111

Yon, M. 1992. “Ugarit: The Urban Habitat the Present State of the Archaeological

Picture,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 286: 19-34.

--------. 2006. The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Singapore: Eisenbrauns.

112

MAPS

113

Map 1: Geographical scope of the study area (base-map adapted from

http://www.maps-for-free.com/)

114

Map 2: The Göksu Valley

115

Index of Cilician Sites on Map 3.

Ada Tepe II (46) Küçük Çiftlik (49)

Alapunar (39) Küçük Mankıt (34)

Alyahanun (16) Mercin (33)

Anberinharkı (60) Misis (28)

Arpaderesi Mağara (66) Molla Ahmet (48)

Boz Höyük (51) Nergis (22)

Camili (27) Paşa Höyük I (8)

Cebra (36) Paşa Höyük II (9)

Ceyhan II Höyük (47) Paşcu Höyük (55)

Çaputcu Höyük (15) Pınar Tepe (68)

Çatal Höyük (58) Sirkeli Höyük (31)

Çavuşlu (3) Soli Höyük (1)

Çukur Köprü (40) Soyalı/Boyalı Höyük (43)

Dağılbaz (65) Sultan Tepe (61)

Dalbaz Höyük (67) Şamsı Höyük (56)

Dervişli (17) Tanaverdi/Tenevardi (18)

Dikili Höyük (11) Tarmıl Höyük (38)

Domuz Höyük (25) Tarsus-Gözlükule (6)

Domuz Tepe (23) Tatarlı Höyük (54)

Domuz II (24) Tepebağ Höyük (12)

Eşkiler (57) Tepesidelik (50)

Fenni Kireç Höyük (29) Tırmıl (4)

Gavur Köy (21) Tilan Höyük (37)

Geçemey (53) Velican (10)

Hamzalı Buran (42) Yalak Özü (52)

Hesigin/Tülek Höyük (44) Yarım Höyük (35)

Höyük (14) Yaşıl Höyük (30)

İncirlik (26) Yenice Höyük (20)

İslamkadı Çiftlik (45) Yeniköy II (41)

Kabarsa (7) Yeniköy III (19)

Karaağaç (64) Yılanlı Kilise (32)

Karahöyük/Erzin (62) Yumuktepe (2)

Kazanlı (5) Zeytinli (13)

Kızıl Höyük (59)

Kinet Höyük (63)

116

Map 3: Plain Cilicia

117

Map 4: The Asi Delta Plain and the Amuq

118

FIGURES

119

Figure 1: Developmental stages of the Göksu plain, phase I showing the first stage

(after Bener, 1967: fig. 3)

120

Figure 2: Developmental phases of the Tarsus plain, stage 5a-b showing the shoreline

of the mid-Holocene (after Öner et al., 2005: fig. 3)

121

Figure 3: The evolution of the Ceyhan river (after Gürbüz, 1999: fig 2)

122

Figure 4: Map showing the plains of Dörtyol and Erzin (after Doyuran, 1982: fig. 4)

123

Figure 5: Developmental phases of the Asi (Orontes) delta plain

(after Öner, 2008: fig. 15 A, B, C, D)

124

Figure 6: Geomorphologic map of the Kinet Höyük area, map showing the oldest

Deli river (after Ozaner, 1995: fig. 1; Beach and Luzzadder-Beach,

2008: fig.1)

125

Figure 7: Kinet Höyük, Operation R showing stratigraphic units (after, Beach and

Luzzadder-Beach, 2008: fig. 5)

126

Figure 8: Geomorphologic map of the Asi delta plain showing soundings

(after Öner, 2008: fig. 6)

127

Figure 9: Map showing MB river harbors along the middle part of coastal Israel

(after Raban, 1985: fig. 2)

128

Figure 10: A commercial container from Uluburun, the Canaanite jar (after Pulak,

2006: fig. 24)

Figure 11: Canaanite jars stored in the warehouse of Minet el-Beidha (after Sauvage,

2007: fig. 4)

129

Figure 12: Commercial containers, the Cypriot pithos (after Matthӓus, 2006: fig. 14)

Figure 13: Commercial goods, the Cypriot fine ware from Uluburun (after Pulak,

2006: fig. 31-32)

130

Figure 14: An example for local trends in ceramic styles from Tell el Dab’a

(after Bietak, 1996: fig. 47)

Figure 15: A gold pendant from Uluburun showing a representation of Astarte (after

Yalçın et al., 2006: fig. 104)

131

Figure 16: A boat depiction on an Ugaritic cylinder seal (after Amiet, 1992:

fig.42.232)

Figure 17: A boat depiction on a faience seal from Ugarit (after Höckmann, 2006:

fig. 2.6)

132

Figure 18: A depiction of boat on a Canaanite jar handle from Tell Tweini

(after, Bretschneider and Lerberghe, 2008b: fig. 3.39)

Figure 19: The shipshed at Kommos (after Shaw, 1990: fig. 9)

133

Figure 20: Illustrations of hauling river boat on the Euphrates river (after Margueron,

2004: fig. 38-39)

134

Figure 21: Mortise-tenon joints (after Ward, 2006: fig. 4)

Figure 22: A MBA terracotta model of boat from Anatolia

(after Özgüç, 2005: fig. 222)

Figure 23: Langlois’ gravure showing boats on the Seyhan in the 19th

century AD

135

Figure 24: The main shapes of Red Lustrous Wheel Made Ware

(after Knappett, 2005: fig. 2)

Figure 25: Late Mycenaean sherds 2, 5, 7 from Kazanlı and 8 from Tarsus (after,

Sherratt and Crouwel, 1987: fig. 5)

136

Figure 26: Sirkeli Höyük, geo-electric profile 5, showing the wall of a dock (after

Novák and Kozal, 2011: fig. 8)

Figure 27: Sirkeli Höyük, geo-electric profile 1, showing a wall east of the channel

(after Novák and Kozal, 2011: fig. 6)

137

Figure 28: The topographic map of Sirkeli Höyük, showing an artificial channel of

the Ceyhan river (after Novák and Kozal, 2011: fig. 2)

138

Figure 29: Tell Atchana, wall paintings in Minoan fresco technique (after Niemeier

and Niemeier, 1998: fig. VIe, VIf)

Figure 30: Tell Atchana, some imported Late Cypriot ceramics (after Bergoffen,

2005: fig. 13a, 14c, 15b, 37a, 43c)

139

Figure 31: Map showing the relationship between Ugarit and its harbors, Minet el-

Beidha and Ras Ibn Hani (after Marriner et al., 2012: fig. 10)

140

Figure 32: Map showing the Ugaritic Kingdom and its harbor towns (after

Bretschneider and Lerberghe, 2008b: fig 3.1)

141

Figure 33: Tarsus, a Hieroglyphic bulla with the personal name Isputahsu

(after Goetze, 1936: fig. 1)

Figure 34: Kilise Tepe, an ivory stamp seal (after Collon et al., 2011: fig. 8)

Figure 35: Soli Höyük, a Hieroglyphic bulla with the personal name Targasna

(after Yağcı, 2006b: fig. 4)

142

Figure 36: Yumuktepe, Building levels VII-V showing a casemate system (after

Garstang, 1953: fig.151)

143

Figure 37: Kinet Höyük, a stamped Canaanite jar handle with a Hittite official seal

(after Gates, 2008: fig. 9)

Figure 38: Tell Tweini, a seal with a Hittite-Luwian hieroglyphic inscription

(after Bretschneider and Lerberghe, 2008b: fig. 3.37)